# DC Sniper case coming to closure



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I wonder how people feel about this news and/or the way it is reported. Something about presenting this using the term the "mastermind" behind the attacks struck me as over-dramatic. I'm personally for the death penalty, but it seemed like an over sell; which always makes me suspicious.

https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BJIG986&show_article=1


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

He's getting what he deserves, "mastermind" or not. Glad to see it come to closure.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

John Mohammad seems a truly evil being whose sentence appears to match the vicious and calculated path he chose to walk, during that and other periods of his life.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The leader of the Great Train Robbery or Binks Job may be considered "masterminds" but not this turd.

A posterboy for the pro-death penalty crowd if there was one.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Nowhere near over... the appeals and such, add a couple months, I imagine.


----------



## Black & Proud (Oct 28, 2009)

I am opposed to the death penalty because it is a racist act in the US historically, and also for moral reasons. I cannot say for sure whether this particular individual is innocent or guilty of the crimes for which he has been convicted, but even if guilty I doubt any of us knows sure enough to kill a man for it. That is playing God, and playing God is what leads to such atrocities in the first place.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

You're off to a strong start there, B&P. Good work.

As for me, I do sometimes find myself on the fence regarding capital punishment.

This, however, case puts me squarely in the "fry him" camp.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Black & Proud said:


> I am opposed to the death penalty because it is a racist act in the US historically, and also for moral reasons. I cannot say for sure whether this particular individual is innocent or guilty of the crimes for which he has been convicted, but even if guilty I doubt any of us knows sure enough to kill a man for it. That is playing God, and playing God is what leads to such atrocities in the first place.


How is the death penalty racist?

Also, we talk about how the death penalty is playing God, but is it really? I know personally, I think I rather be executed than spend life in prison.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*"recasts lede" what?*

Item one: the government has no legitimate authority to kill and they know it. That is why executions are conducted in desolate rooms at early hours and no recording is allowed. Legitimate governmental actions are public, not hidden in a shameful way.

Item two: The guy got a bunch of people shot in public, even after the routine was known, and escaped undetected every time. Mastermind, unless you think that was just luck or divine intervention.


----------



## Black & Proud (Oct 28, 2009)

brokencycle said:


> How is the death penalty racist?
> 
> Also, we talk about how the death penalty is playing God, but is it really? I know personally, I think I rather be executed than spend life in prison.


Well, so you think you would prefer the death penalty for yourself, than life in prison. Why wouldn't you give another person this choice as well? Perhaps they have a different opinion than you do.

And as for the racism of the death penalty, that was the conclusion of the US Justice department. 80% of death row inmates are African-American or another non-white group, and non-whites account for 74% of the cases when prosecutors seek the death penalty. Would you say that demonstrates a significant racial disparity??


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I understand how they're convicting more black people of murder, but I'd like to know how those insidious racists are creating such a disparity in the number of black homicide _victims_. I know most people think it's black-on-black crime, but surely the KKK is doing it and setting them up, right?


----------



## Black & Proud (Oct 28, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I understand how they're convicting more black people of murder, but I'd like to know how those insidious racists are creating such a disparity in the number of black homicide _victims_. I know most people think it's black-on-black crime, but surely the KKK is doing it and setting them up, right?


I didn't say that it was only racists doing it, but that the process itself has racist outcomes (and therefore should be abandoned).


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I completely agree. Since black people are convicted of murder at a much higher rate than whites, all murder laws should be abolished.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I completely agree. Since black people are convicted of murder at a much higher rate than whites, all murder laws should be abolished.


And while we conclude that the disproportioned representaion of death row inmates is NOT emblematic of any race based proclivity for violence, it IS emblematic of a racist America.

Got it!!


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Item one: the government has no legitimate authority to kill and they know it. That is why executions are conducted in desolate rooms at early hours and no recording is allowed. Legitimate governmental actions are public, not hidden in a shameful way.


Umm, actually, not so. One of the reasons they are no longer public is becasue they constituted spectacle - people would travel from all over to see them and to sell wares . Do you really think the government couldn't make a ton of money by selling tickets to executions? Please! They would be wildly popular. It's about decorum, not shame. It actually provides the condemned with some dignity that he would NEVER have if public executions were allowed. And, recordings have been allowed from time to time - do want to listem to them all? Witnesses, including media, are always allowed to attend executions.

They are conducted at earliest hours of the new day, again, not because of shame, but for legitimate legal reasons.

The government, of course, has legitimate authority to execute people -I have no idea why you would assert such a silly thing; if the people choose to empower the government to take certain actions and it's within the bounds of the state and federal constitution, it's a legitimate government action. Most people, apparently, favor state and federal laws allowing for capital punishment.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Black & Proud said:


> And as for the racism of the death penalty, that was the conclusion of the US Justice department. 80% of death row inmates are African-American or another non-white group, and non-whites account for 74% of the cases when prosecutors seek the death penalty. Would you say that demonstrates a significant racial disparity??


Your figures are bogus. If you can't get that right, why should anyone believe anything you say?

https://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cp.htm

Example: Of persons under sentence of death in 2007:
-- 1,804 were white (56%)
-- 1,345 were black (41%)
-- 26 were American Indian
-- 35 were Asian
-- 10 were of unknown race.

Go peddle your racist cliches/assertions elsewhere or, at least, get your facts straight.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

If capital punishment deterred crime, perhaps a case could be made for it. But it simply does not. Every credible study ever done on this issue has resulted in the same conclusion.

So what's left is, capital punishment is a barbaric revenge game, which accomplishes nothing except to satiate hatred and bring an entire society down to the same level as murderers.

I have my problems with some positions taken by the Roman Catholic Church, but on this issue they're absolutely correct IMO: capital punishment is the ultimate form of totalitarianism (and yes, I do know they used to support it).


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> If capital punishment deterred crime, perhaps a case could be made for it. But it simply does not. Every credible study ever done on this issue has resulted in the same conclusion. So what's left is, capital punishment is a barbaric revenge game, which accomplishes nothing except to satiate hatred and bring an entire society down to the same level as murderers.


I'm not a proponent of the death penalty - I go back and forth on the issue - I tend toward opposing it if we would lock them up for life with hard labor, etc. But the above is more than a bit simplistic. First off, there is something to be said for the state taking this act in the name of justice - yes, justice. Second, it certainly may prove comforting to the victim's family which shouldn't be discounted. Third, it may reduce vigilantism because people are more likely to take the law into their own hands where they don't trust the government to provide "equity."

In any case, when a state provides a trial, has rules of evidence and presumptions of evidence, due process, witnesses, legal representation, etc. - it is not sinking to the level of a murderer - that's simplistic, silly nonsense - and it pretty much makes you sound irrational - not saying you are - but, it makes you sound that way. Shooting random innocent people from the trunk of a car is barbaric; executing such a person after a trial and the above mentioned acoutrements of our justice symbol is not. Yor sense of barbarity seems off kilter.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Black & Proud said:


> Well, so you think you would prefer the death penalty for yourself, than life in prison. Why wouldn't you give another person this choice as well? Perhaps they have a different opinion than you do.
> 
> And as for the racism of the death penalty, that was the conclusion of the US Justice department. 80% of death row inmates are African-American or another non-white group, and non-whites account for 74% of the cases when prosecutors seek the death penalty. Would you say that demonstrates a significant racial disparity??


Well perhaps the people they murdered would have preferred life, they didn't really give their victims an option did they?


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

Epaminondas said:


> It actually provides the condemned with some dignity that he would NEVER have if public executions were allowed.


Who wants to give dignity to the the person that has been deemed worthy of death? Are you suggesting that we can't add insult to fatality? If we are afraid to offend the condemned, it is only because there is doubt over guilt or sentence.


> They are conducted at earliest hours of the new day, again, not because of shame, but for legitimate legal reasons.


I thought it was to hide from protesters, and shame. What legal reasons?


> The government, of course, has legitimate authority to execute people -I have no idea why you would assert such a silly thing


They can, but in the case of the United States they do not. The Declaration of Independence ("...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...") states that a democracy is founded up Divine Rule being shared by us all. Our right to execute is literally on loan from God, but we somehow are still ashamed of the act. Illegitimate! Monarchs and true Sovereigns who are sure of the legitimacy of their power confidently and publicly carry out executions for all to see.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Epaminondas said:


> I'm not a proponent of the death penalty - I go back and forth on the issue - I tend toward opposing it if we would lock them up for life with hard labor, etc. But the above is more than a bit simplistic. First off, there is something to be said for the state taking this act in the name of justice - yes, justice. Second, it certainly may prove comforting to the victim's family which shouldn't be discounted. Third, it may reduce vigilantism because people are more likely to take the law into their own hands where they don't trust the government to provide "equity."


Have you ever seen a death certificate for someone who's been put to death by the state? It reads "homicide". Homicide can be justifiable when life or property are in imminent danger, but neither is the case with capital punishment. The state has the means to protect society without resorting to intentional homicide.




Epaminondas said:


> In any case, when a state provides a trial, has rules of evidence and presumptions of evidence, due process, witnesses, legal representation, etc. - it is not sinking to the level of a murderer - that's simplistic, silly nonsense - and it pretty much makes you sound irrational - not saying you are - but, it makes you sound that way.





Epaminondas said:


> Shooting random innocent people from the trunk of a car is barbaric; executing such a person after a trial and the above mentioned acoutrements of our justice symbol is not. Yor sense of barbarity seems off kilter.


My stand is the same as the RCC's. Hardly unusual, but it's not the first time I've (or they've) been accused of being irrational.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Who wants to give dignity to the the person that has been deemed worthy of death? Are you suggesting that we can't add insult to fatality? If we are afraid to offend the condemned, it is only because there is doubt over guilt or sentence.I thought it was to hide from protesters, and of course shame.


 I suggest you read accounts of the executions during the French revolution and tell me that even the condemned cannot be demeaned. They can be. The purpose of the execution is to do justice, not provide a circus. The U.S. Constitution also seeks to maintain this dignity of the person by prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. You're just as likely to have protesters in favor of execution as against it. I was in Nebraska when Otey was executed - the first execution in Nebraska in 35 years - I think the pro death penalty protesters outnumbered those against. In any case, it was a carnival atmosphere and did nether side credit. You are ware that executions in the US used to be public? It is only relatively recently that they became somewhat more secluded. It's about decroum, not shame.



> What legal reasons?


 The legal reason is to effectuate the execution at the earliest possible legal time and avoid yet one more stay of an execution.



> They can, but in the case of the United States they do not. The Declaration of Independence ("...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...") states that a democracy is founded up Divine Rule being shared by us all. Our right to execute is literally on loan from God, but we somehow are still ashamed of the act. Illegitimate! Monarchss and true Sovereigns who are sure of the legitimacy of their power confidently and publicly carry out executions for all to see.


The Declaration of Independence is a lovely political philosophy document - it is not law. The laws and the power of the government come, not from God, but form the governed and/or the sovereign states according to the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution and, apparently, most state constitutions recoginze the right of capital punishment. It is a legitimate state act.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Black & Proud said:


> Well, so you think you would prefer the death penalty for yourself, than life in prison. Why wouldn't you give another person this choice as well? Perhaps they have a different opinion than you do.
> 
> And as for the racism of the death penalty, that was the conclusion of the US Justice department. 80% of death row inmates are African-American or another non-white group, and non-whites account for 74% of the cases when prosecutors seek the death penalty. Would you say that demonstrates a significant racial disparity??


You are conveniently ignoring a lot of factors like who commits the most crimes. What's funny is that I'm also against the death penalty. Mostly, because or prosecution system makes too many errors. Prosecutors have an incentive to convict someone, anyone and that does not always lead to correct decisions.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> You are conveniently ignoring a lot of factors like who commits the most crimes. What's funny is that I'm also against the death penalty. Mostly, because or prosecution system makes too many errors. Prosecutors have an incentive to convict someone, anyone and that does not always lead to correct decisions.


Interesting to note that while 2/3 of Americans support the death penalty, 60% also believe at least one person in the last five years has been put to death who was innocent of his/her alleged crime. So it's fair to say 60% of us support murder, as long as enough guilty people are put to death:

https://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Have you ever seen a death certificate for someone who's been put to death by the state? It reads "homicide". Homicide can be justifiable when life or property are in imminent danger, but neither is the case with capital punishment. The state has the means to protect society without resorting to intentional homicide.


 I have not seen the death certificate of someone who has been executed. I have spent weeks going through photographs, depositions, and other evidence on a death penalty case when I was working for a state Attorney General as a law student. The state may have other means to protect society - as regrettable as it may be to you, however, we live in a democratic republic and it is the role of the state to reflect the will of the people. Again, contrary to your earlier post, this does not make the death penalty babaric, nor does it lower the state or its people to the level of a murderer.



> My stand is the same as the RCC's. Hardly unusual, but it's not the first time I've (or they've) been accused of being irrational.


Come now, FrankDC, you can't pick and choose your Catholic teachings and wrap yourself in the convenient ones and ignore the others. You've certainly expressed the belief that the RCC is wrong/irrational on some issues yourself - some of which teachings go back to the very beginnings of the Church. The RCC, by the way, does not strictly prohibit capital punishment and Vatican City had a death penalty as recently as the 1920s, I beleive.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Epaminondas said:


> Your figures are bogus. If you can't get that right, why should anyone believe anything you say?
> 
> https://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cp.htm
> 
> ...


Oh snap! B&P got pwned!

Welcome, Epaminondas--I like you. Too bad I no longer live in Georgia.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Epaminondas said:


> Come now, FrankDC, you can't pick and choose your Catholic teachings and wrap yourself in the convenient ones and ignore the others.


Sure I can. I'm simply making the point that being against capital punishment is hardly unusual (or off-kilter as you put it). I wasn't claiming to be a Roman Catholic.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Sure I can. I'm simply making the point that being against capital punishment is hardly unusual (or off-kilter as you put it). I wasn't claiming to be a Roman Catholic.


Fair enough. I know it's not unusual. Like I said, I go back and forth on it. I think there is something to be said for abolishing it and I do think it would lead a moral coherence to society and our culture if it could be abolished in conjunction with the abolition of a constitutional right to abortion. I simply thought you might have engaged in slightly polemic language that needed to be called.

BTW, FrankDC, welcome back to the Interchange.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Frank?! I knew a capital punishment thread would draw someone out of the woodwork ... :devil: 

Now we just need the P-Bomb!


----------



## Black & Proud (Oct 28, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Oh snap! B&P got pwned!
> 
> Welcome, Epaminondas--I like you. Too bad I no longer live in Georgia.


The death penalty is racist all over the US, but the figures I provided were for the federal death penalty (https://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab017/index.html https://www.justice.gov/dag/pubdoc/dpsurvey.html)

The state statistics also show major racism, with African-Americans being executed at a rate almost 400% higher than their incidence in the population.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Epaminondas said:


> Your figures are bogus. If you can't get that right, why should anyone believe anything you say?
> 
> https://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cp.htm
> 
> ...


And as to homicide:



> *In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites*


https://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

https://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oracetab.htm










And these numbers of course consider Hispanics to be white.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Have you ever seen a death certificate for someone who's been put to death by the state? It reads "homicide". Homicide can be justifiable when life or property are in imminent danger, but neither is the case with capital punishment.


The word homicide is erroneously thought by many to mean a criminal act; however, that simply isn't the definition. Homicide means nothing more than the killing of one person by another person, justifiable or not. For example, a soldier killing another soldier in war is not a criminal act, but it is homicide. All you are doing is using an incorrect definition of a word to play on emotion.

Cruiser


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Black & Proud said:


> The death penalty is racist all over the US, but the figures I provided were for the federal death penalty (https://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab017/index.html https://www.justice.gov/dag/pubdoc/dpsurvey.html)
> 
> The state statistics also show major racism, with African-Americans being executed at a rate almost 400% higher than their incidence in the population.


From the site you link to:

"At the present time, there are 19 people awaiting a death sentence in the federal system: thirteen are Black, four are white, one is Hispanic and one belongs to another minority group."

That's a representative sample if I ever saw one.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

No, cruiser is right--justifiable homicide is _not_ a crime.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Black & Proud said:


> The death penalty is racist all over the US, but the figures I provided were for the federal death penalty (https://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab017/index.html https://www.justice.gov/dag/pubdoc/dpsurvey.html)
> 
> The state statistics also show major racism, with African-Americans being executed at a rate almost 400% higher than their incidence in the population.


Give me a break, that 80% stat is based on a total population of 19 prisoners in the year 2000. You conveniently ignored the state figures I cited above becasue it didn't suit your polemic and your desire to paint a skewed picture of victimization and pervasive racism.

Further, you don't know that the executions actually occurred, you don't know the numbers of accused by race, nor do you know what underlying crimes the defendants were accused of so, your 400% figure is science fiction and, even if true, meaningless absent descriptions of the offenses with the race of the perpetrator.

You may want to review the report below from then-current Attorney General Janet Reno, prepared in 2001 to address the earlier DOJ study upon which your skewed statistics are based:

,

in pertinent part, I will quote "In announcing the results of the Sept. 12 report, Attorney General Reno noted that the information showed racial/ethnic disparities in the federal death penalty system, in comparison to the general population. Specifically, as noted above, in the 682 cases submitted to the Department's death penalty review procedure by U.S. Attorney offices between 1995 and July 2000, 20% involved White defendants, 48% involved Black defendants, and 29% involved Hispanic defendants. She further noted, however, that statistical disparities relating to race and ethnicity are not unique in any sense to the federal death penalty context, but are "true of the entire criminal justice system, both state and federal." With respect to the decisions made in the Department's review process, she noted that the proportion of cases in which seeking the death penalty was actually authorized was higher for White defendants than for defendants of other races/ethnicities. Specifically, as noted, in the cases considered by the Attorney General, the death penalty was authorized 38% of the time for White defendants, 25% of the time for Black defendants, and 20% of the time for Hispanic defendants."

Again, Black & Proud (rhetorically wonder how long I would be allowed to have a username of White & Proud on this site) your statistics are skewed. You deliberately misled people by citing the 80% figure and only when called on it clarified that it related to 80% of 19 federal prisoners. For a short summary of the 2001 DOJ report see: In Short, the federal government diproportionaltely recommended the death penalty for white defendants. Regrettably, as long as minorities disproportionately committ crimes they will be disproportionately present on death row.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> The word homicide is erroneously thought by many to mean a criminal act; however, that simply isn't the definition. Homicide means nothing more than the killing of one person by another person, justifiable or not. For example, a soldier killing another soldier in war is not a criminal act, but it is homicide. All you are doing is using an incorrect definition of a word to play on emotion.
> 
> Cruiser


The issue is whether homicide is justifiable, and IMO it's not in this case. The state has the obligation to protect society from violent criminals, not to play God over life and death. As I mentioned earlier, the RCC's view that it's "the ultimate form of totalitarianism" couldn't be expressed any more accurately IMO.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> As I mentioned earlier, the RCC's view that it's "the ultimate form of totalitarianism" couldn't be expressed any more accurately IMO.


Source of quote, please?


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> The issue is whether homicide is justifiable, and IMO it's not in this case. The state has the obligation to protect society from violent criminals, not to play God over life and death. As I mentioned earlier, the RCC's view that it's "the ultimate form of totalitarianism" couldn't be expressed any more accurately IMO.


The RCC, in fact, disagrees with you. Section 2267 of the Catechism states:



> Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
> 
> If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is a n absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."


It is not playing God (Jesus submitted to the state's authority to execute him - render unto Caesar....) and the Church does not say so, nor does it completely rule out that capital punishment is licit. You have mis-characterized the Catholic Church's position.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Epaminondas said:


> Source of quote, please?


It comes from Pope John Paul II. He wrote extensively about this topic in his encyclical, "Evangelium Vitae", published in 1995, although this exact phrase isn't contained in the encyclical.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> It comes from Pope John Paul II. He wrote extensively about this topic in his encyclical, "Evangelium Vitae", published in 1995, although this exact phrase isn't contained in the encyclical.


 No, I didn't think so - odd that you chose to put it in quotes as if it had.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> ... capital punishment is a barbaric revenge game, which accomplishes nothing except to satiate hatred and bring an entire society down to the same level as murderers.


Another tired cliche.

When the State murders the innocent indescrimately and without due process, it will be "on the same level" as the murderers it has convicted.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Epaminondas said:


> It is not playing God (Jesus submitted to the state's authority to execute him - render unto Caesar....) and the Church does not say so, nor does it completely rule out that capital punishment is licit. You have mis-characterized the Catholic Church's position.


Actually it's my precise view, and always has been: capital punishment is justifiable only as a last resort, when no other means exist to protect a society.

As for the Jesus quote, in context he was clearly referring to the payment of taxes, not to capital punishment. And you accuse me of mischaracterizing the RCC's position?

Again, read Evangelium Vitae (and Veritatis Splendor, from 1993). PJPII spoke tirelessly of the "culture of death", which includes capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia etc. He and the RCC condemns it in its entirety.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html

Even though I'm not Catholic I respect the Popes, and I respect this opinion of Capital Punishment.

All I would ask of someone referencing this is that they also endorse the Pope's other policy opinions; such as a strict anti-death penalty policy:strict anti-abortion policy:etc.

Unfortunately, not being Catholic I don't engage with many and/or meet many Catholics that I think genuinely utilize the Pope's opinion on the death penalty becuase they are sincerely trying to live a life of obedience to the Catholic teachings, but because it's convenient support for their own secular argument against capital punishment. I'll give an example, I play golf with a guy who is a complete mess and apparently a fervernt Catholic. If he only confessed his binge drinking, woman chasing, and cheating at golf his confessions would take at least an hour per week. He's anti-death-penalty, but pro-abortion and he "hides" behind the Pope rather than justify his view by some other means.

I personally find a lot of these people are pro-abortion; and that loses my respect for their intellectual position, but if someone is living by walking inside the lines the Church draws then I have the greatest respect for them even though I disagree on this issue and many teachings/doctrines of the Church.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc, thanks for that link.

The exact PJPII quote I'm trying to find was, "Capital punishment is the ultimate form of totalitarianism, abortion is the ultimate form of selfishness." I read it in 1980 or 81, but I don't remember the letter it came from.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> All I would ask of someone referencing this is that they also endorse the Pope's other policy opinions; such as a strict anti-death penalty policy:strict anti-abortion policy:etc.


I was simply countering someone else's claim that being against capital punishment is "off-kilter" and/or irrational. As I've already mentioned I don't consider myself a Roman Catholic nor do I subscribe to many of their positions on other issues.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ksinc said:


> All I would ask of someone referencing this is that they also endorse the Pope's other policy opinions; such as a strict anti-death penalty policy:strict anti-abortion policy:etc.


The Pope's logic is fallible.

In a justly applied death penalty the State is protecting the innocent from the guilty.

The unborn are also innocent.

To lump both issues into the "culture of death" or to suggest each are moral equals is a foolish consistency.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I was simply countering someone else's claim that being against capital punishment is "off-kilter" and/or irrational. As I've already mentioned I don't consider myself a Roman Catholic nor do I subscribe to many of their positions on other issues.


Well, IMHO, that argument fails. If you are not a Roman Catholic you should have some other justification that your position on an issue is not irrational.

The Pope's position is not irrational because it is consisent with his values that are applied equally to every position.

If one is not equally consistent, as the Pope, then it is in my view legitimate to ask you to defend irrational/"off-kilter" by other means.

In other words, only an obedient Roman Catholic can get away with "because the Pope says so."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The Pope's logic is fallible.
> 
> In a justly applied death penalty the State is protecting the innocent from the guilty.
> 
> ...


That seems like an argument you should make to the Pope; right?

I am not endorsing, defending, or attacking the Pope's logic. I am simply saying what I expect from someone using the Pope as a defense of their own position. When you 'outsource' your moral persuasion then that comes with certain baggage.

There was some 'wordplay' in previous posts where the claim went from "unusual" to "irrational." To be clear, it may not be "unusual", but that does not mean it is not "irrational."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ksinc said:


> ...I expect from someone using the Pope as a defense of their own position. When you 'outsource' your moral persuasion then that comes with certain baggage.


I suggested Malcolm X was a spappy dresser.

I hope I don't have to defend his ideas!!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I suggested Malcolm X was a spappy dresser.
> 
> I hope I don't have to defend his ideas!!


Clearly that is an incorrect application/analogy and would not relate to "outsourcing your moral persuasion."


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, IMHO, that argument fails. If you are not a Roman Catholic you should have some other justification that your position on an issue is not irrational.
> 
> The Pope's position is not irrational because it is consisent with his values that are applied equally to every position.
> 
> ...


ksinc, I promised myself when I decided to rejoin AAAC to not get involved with the "old ways". Primarily this means straw man arguing and pedantic BS.

Or in other words, I'm not playing with you this time around.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> ksinc, I promised myself when I decided to rejoin AAAC to not get involved with the "old ways". Primarily this means straw man arguing and pedantic BS.
> 
> Or in other words, I'm not playing with you this time around.


Who started their "old ways" with "straw man arguing and pedantic BS" by substituting "irrational" for "unusual" and conveniently dragging the Pope in to defend their own moral argument by reference when they aren't even RC?

I am not arguing the death penalty via strawman or other means. I simply "did my own homework" in relation to the citation you half-way made and expressed my opinion about selectively outsourcing moral persuasions to religious figures. If you are not doing that then you have no reason to be so defensive.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Epaminondas said:


> In any case, when a state provides a trial, has rules of evidence and presumptions of evidence, due process, witnesses, legal representation, etc. - it is not sinking to the level of a murderer - that's simplistic, silly nonsense - and it pretty much makes you sound irrational - not saying you are - but, it makes you sound that way. Shooting random innocent people from the trunk of a car is barbaric; executing such a person after a trial and the above mentioned acoutrements of our justice symbol is not. Yor sense of barbarity seems off kilter.


Here's what I was responding to. Not to you.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Here's what I was responding to. Not to you.


Yes; I read that too. What was unusual was different from what was irrational. Then you answered with the Pope that it was both usual and rational conflating the two. At least that is what I read.

Perhaps irrational positions on the death penalty are not unusual. That seems to stand reason.

Can you defend your own argument is rational without using the Pope as a defense; because the Pope's position may be rational, but he is also anti-abortion, etc, etc? So it seems like a strawman to argue that your position, while perhaps not unusual, is rational for the exact same reasons as the Pope's.

That's where you lost me and that is my sole contention.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes; I read that too. What was unusual was different from what was irrational. Then you answered with the Pope that it was both usual and rational conflating the two. At least that is what I read.
> 
> Perhaps irrational positions on the death penalty are not unusual. That seems to stand reason.
> 
> ...


The question is whether homicide is justifiable in the case of capital punishment. If it is not, which I believe is the case in the U.S., since we have other means to protect our society, it therefore constitutes legalized murder. The other poster accused that position as being irrational.

Can we please move on now?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> ... since we have other means to protect our society, it therefore constitutes legalized murder.


1) The inmates and guards will still be victimized. The victims families will still be harassed.

2) Do the condemned often order jumbo shrimp for a last meal before they are legally murdered??


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The question is whether homicide is justifiable in the case of capital punishment. If it is not, which I believe is the case in the U.S., since we have other means to protect our society, it therefore constitutes legalized murder. The other poster accused that position as being irrational.
> 
> Can we please move on now?


Sure.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> If it is not, which I believe is the case in the U.S., since we have other means to protect our society, it therefore constitutes legalized murder. The other poster accused that position as being irrational.
> 
> Can we please move on now?


I did not say that disagreeing with the death penalty was irrational, I said that saying that the death penalty lowers the state to the same level as the murderer "when a state provides a trial, has rules of evidence and presumptions of evidence, due process, witnesses, legal representation, etc." is irrational.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The question is whether homicide is justifiable in the case of capital punishment. If it is not, which I believe is the case in the U.S., since we have other means to protect our society, it therefore constitutes legalized murder.


Your saying that it is alright for me to be irresponsible, even to death of an innocent person, and I walk and do it again and so on, and the purpose of government is not to stop me? To some people murder is like eating chocolate, they will do it again and again etc.

What is government supppose to do? Raise my taxes to pay for people who choose to do this, or other grievious deeds, to live free in some prison? I guess you are saying to let them go so they can continue on like a chocolate eater. Only a few people come to their senses with serious crimes. Many have a long list behind them. If you let them go the list will get longer. The purpose of government is so we don't have to take things into our own hands. Perhaps you need to be a victim to understand.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Take a life, save hurt feelings?*



WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) The inmates and guards will still be victimized. The victims families will still be harassed.


If you know of a case where an execution resulted in an improvement in the spirits of a surviving friend or family member, I'd love to hear of it. It does not deliver the sense of closure that people pretend that it will any more that killing a baby removes maternal instinct. In reality, execution removes the chance for forgiveness. Permanently.

And what of the trauma induced on the executioner. He enjoys killing no more than a soldier enjoys war. Claiming that it is proper to attempt curing the second-hand trauma of murder by inflicting first-hand trauma on another is cruel.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Someone remind me what percentage of people on death row have already killed someone before their previous murder?

Last I heard it was about 10% (that had actually been convicted, who knows how many had killed before and not been caught).


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

I am saddened by the event and the outcome. And for me it's an easy choice as I don't think "the State" in any form has any business killing anybody. 

Of course various states have different laws, the federal courts have ruled one way and then another, so obviously the question of capital punishment is far from a settled thing in the United States. 

Some of my reasoning may seem odd but here is part of it: I often am around the dying and the dead. I often see the end of life. In my experience killing someone for having killed someone is not only irrational it is letting them off in an easy manner without accomplishing anything.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Quay said:


> I am saddened by the event and the outcome. And for me it's an easy choice as I don't think "the State" in any form has any business killing anybody.
> 
> Of course various states have different laws, the federal courts have ruled one way and then another, so obviously the question of capital punishment is far from a settled thing in the United States.
> 
> Some of my reasoning may seem odd but here is part of it: I often am around the dying and the dead. I often see the end of life. In my experience killing someone for having killed someone is not only irrational it is letting them off in an easy manner without accomplishing anything.


Nice people really don't comprehend evil people. Some people choose this (they are by the thousands), grab a college age girl, make a video raping her and/or prostitute her for a few days and then kill her, some people die the same day they are caught. This happens weekly for money. Send these monsters to jail and when they come out they within a few years head right back to the old crimes. To make those girls smile like, this sex is fun, takes horrible pain and lots of it with much weaping and begging. These people care not for anyone. Because there is no end to what these people will do to us, the only safety we have from them is their death.

Crimials hate the death penalty and it does make them think twice, sometimes. Thst means the death penalty saves the lives of innocent people, sometimes. And, they are the ones making the choice to get the death penalty when they do the crime.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> If you know of a case where an execution resulted in an improvement in the spirits of a surviving friend or family member, I'd love to hear of it. It does not deliver the sense of closure that people pretend that it will any more that killing a baby removes maternal instinct. In reality, execution removes the chance for forgiveness. Permanently.


There never will be closer the way is should have been and every Christmas the one missing will always bring sorrow. Many feel sorrow that somebody needs to be executed, but, glad for justis. Many children and adluts that have been raped sleep at night knowing the evil one will never come back and do horror to them again. You seem to be in denial.



> And what of the trauma induced on the executioner. He enjoys killing no more than a soldier enjoys war. Claiming that it is proper to attempt curing the second-hand trauma of murder by inflicting first-hand trauma on another is cruel.


Your knowledge base is rather small along with your lessons in life.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Some people choose this (they are by the thousands), grab a college age girl, make a video raping her and/or prostitute her for a few days and then kill her, some people die the same day they are caught. This happens weekly for money. Send these monsters to jail and when they come out they within a few years head right back to the old crimes. To make those girls smile like, this sex is fun, takes horrible pain and lots of it with much weaping and begging.


What?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> What?


I believe in the death penalty. There is much that is never in the news. Police are sorta dead, being useless. Tell the cops on the wrong people and the wrong people will know your name what you said where you live your phone number where you work within miniutes, then they come and get you. If you can call anonymously, where your voice is changed and no way to trace or any other way, then you maybe safe. If the police do not have a safe way to call, then you know organize crime is running it.

Telling the cops, where they can know who you are, sometimes works, but it is very chancy if you are telling on organize crime. They are the biggest sissis on earth. If you want to be around the biggest cowards hang around organize crime. Their fear makes them dangerous. The more dangerous the more of a coward they are. And, as I said, they kill for their love- money. If you are ever around them you will understand why God says to hate your mother and father- Do Not Follow Them In Sin.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> In reality, execution removes the chance for forgiveness. Permanently.


Nah, not true - people forgive dead people all the time and move on with their lives. You're quite wrong.



chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> And what of the trauma induced on the executioner. He enjoys killing no more than a soldier enjoys war. Claiming that it is proper to attempt curing the second-hand trauma of murder by inflicting first-hand trauma on another is cruel.


Again you're just be silly. Give me a citation about traume to the executioner. As you know that execution process is relatively automated, but even when it involved an axeman, i'd love to see a citation to some exectioner suffering PTSD - please provide one. And, your "cruel" argument - for what it is - is laughable. I don't think even the most delusional leftists on the U.S. Supreme Court have take such a view of cruelty. Keep trying, I'm sure your maudlin sentimentality enables you to feel like a more enlightened and kind soul.

Let me try and help you draw a clear picture: the murderer stalks and kills an innocent victim without giving ear to his victim's pleas. The state gives the accused murdered voice through appointed counsel if he can not afford it, a presumption of innocence, due process and a right to confront his accusers, and various and other privilidges and rights denied to his victim. There's no equivalency.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> If you know of a case where an execution resulted in an improvement in the spirits of a surviving friend or family member, I'd love to hear of it.


https://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/victim_kin_kill_slayers_cop_parents_yj8cJ2ZdyaCpa0M7gjn4RN

https://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-19/news/mn-4887_1_death-penalty

After 2 minutes on Google - once again, you're just wrong and inserting your personal beliefs for fact.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Quay said:


> In my experience killing someone for having killed someone is not only irrational it is letting them off in an easy manner without accomplishing anything.


Well, as a lawyer who previously worked as a law clerk for a federal judge, let me assure you that will all the pro se cases file by prisoners, you're not letting them off easy. Unless you want to pay for their mail order college and graduate degree education (it's true), their incessant demands upon the prison system, and their demands for special meals and hygeine requirements, etc. Beleive me, liberal judges are making prison more and more bearable - it 's my back up plan for retirement. At least I'll get meals and healthcare and maybe a chance to get a PhD at taxpayer expense.

I'd be more tolerant of your opinion, if we could make sure that there was some legitimate high-end suffering involved in incarceration.

And, again - it's not irrational. You're being silly. At a minimum you have to explain why it's irrational, not assume it in order to be taken seriously.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> As for the Jesus quote, in context he was clearly referring to the payment of taxes, not to capital punishment. And you accuse me of mischaracterizing the RCC's position?


That's ridiculous - that quote has stood for two millenia in western civilzation as the defense for the two separate spheres of civil government and religion. In its narrow context - yes, it relates to taxes. As used by both Church and State for 2000 years, it is a statement regarding the separate spheres or religion and statecraft - see Sharia law for the difference. Ridiculous statement.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> I believe in the death penalty. There is much that is never in the news. Police are sorta dead, being useless. Tell the cops on the wrong people and the wrong people will know your name what you said where you live your phone number where you work within miniutes, then they come and get you. If you can call anonymously, where your voice is changed and no way to trace or any other way, then you maybe safe. If the police do not have a safe way to call, then you know organize crime is running it.
> 
> Telling the cops, where they can know who you are, sometimes works, but it is very chancy if you are telling on organize crime. They are the biggest sissis on earth. If you want to be around the biggest cowards hang around organize crime. Their fear makes them dangerous. The more dangerous the more of a coward they are. And, as I said, they kill for their love- money. If you are ever around them you will understand why God says to hate your mother and father- Do Not Follow Them In Sin.


No; I meant What were you talking about in the previous post happens weekly by the thousands and where?

No comment on cops or organized crime from me.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

WA said:


> ....Nice people really don't comprehend evil people.


Hehhehhe...how charming. You think I'm nice!


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Epaminondas said:


> Well, as a lawyer who previously worked as a law clerk for a federal judge, let me assure you that will all the pro se cases file by prisoners, you're not letting them off easy. Unless you want to pay for their mail order college and graduate degree education (it's true), their incessant demands upon the prison system, and their demands for special meals and hygeine requirements, etc. Beleive me, liberal judges are making prison more and more bearable - it 's my back up plan for retirement. At least I'll get meals and healthcare and maybe a chance to get a PhD at taxpayer expense.


No arguments that the current system needs a great deal of work. And I am familiar with prisoners, though not really at the great distance you must have been while clerking. Did you ever volunteer at a maximum security facility or get any one-on-one with someone on death row?



> I'd be more tolerant of your opinion, if we could make sure that there was some legitimate high-end suffering involved in incarceration.


I don't recall asking for tolerance but am curious why do you feel the desire or need to be able to grant such? It almost sounds condescending, but that surely wasn't your intent. I certainly agree that incarceration's methods need reform. Current practices neither punish nor rehabilitate, though I must say I've no idea what "high-end suffering" might be -- perhaps being harshly whipped with Hermès scarves? 



> And, again - it's not irrational. You're being silly. At a minimum you have to explain why it's irrational, not assume it in order to be taken seriously.


Legions and legions of keener minds than I possess have come up with grand and compelling arguments against capital punishment. As a lawyer and former clerk you're surely familiar with them. Agree or not with my statements, it makes no difference to me as the general arguments against capital punishment are to many a mind stronger and more rational than those for it. You know your views better than I do and anything I say will not make any difference. I place my view here so as to be on the record as someone who does not favor the current system, its methods or its ultimate solution.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Epaminondas said:


> That's ridiculous - that quote has stood for two millenia in western civilzation as the defense for the two separate spheres of civil government and religion. In its narrow context - yes, it relates to taxes. As used by both Church and State for 2000 years, it is a statement regarding the separate spheres or religion and statecraft - see Sharia law for the difference. Ridiculous statement.


That is absolute nonsense and scarcely merits a response. If you're claiming that either the RCC or our government has ever claimed this gospel passage means it's ok for the state to have power over human life and death, you're either delusional or an ex-lawyer for George W. Bush. Such extrapolations might exist between your left ear and your right, but certainly not in the laws of our state or Catholic dogma.

The context makes it perfectly clear that the Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus into committing a specific crime under Roman law (tax resistance). In fact, in spite of Jesus' statement to the contrary, the primary charge leveled against him at his trial before Pontius Pilate still was inciting tax revolt:

"Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ/Messiah, a king." Luke 23:1-4
​


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*chasing dragons*



Epaminondas said:


> After 2 minutes on Google - once again, you're just wrong and inserting your personal beliefs for fact.


You have provided people _expecting_ a result when I asked for someone who had gotten the result. I understand that people think the murderer's death will make them feel better. I am also aware of them being proven wrong*.

Indulging the optimistic delusions of emotional closure by death results in additional remorse and in fact it removes the route to true closure.

* It takes a while for the honeymoon to end and reality to set in, so some boob may make a vendetta-positive statement up to a week afterward, but this euphoria is ephemeral.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> No arguments that the current system needs a great deal of work. And I am familiar with prisoners, though not really at the great distance you must have been while clerking. Did you ever volunteer at a maximum security facility or get any one-on-one with someone on death row?
> 
> I don't recall asking for tolerance but am curious why do you feel the desire or need to be able to grant such? It almost sounds condescending, but that surely wasn't your intent. I certainly agree that incarceration's methods need reform. Current practices neither punish nor rehabilitate, though I must say I've no idea what "high-end suffering" might be -- *perhaps being harshly whipped with Hermès scarves? *
> 
> Legions and legions of keener minds than I possess have come up with grand and compelling arguments against capital punishment. As a lawyer and former clerk you're surely familiar with them. Agree or not with my statements, it makes no difference to me as the general arguments against capital punishment are to many a mind stronger and more rational than those for it. You know your views better than I do and anything I say will not make any difference. I place my view here so as to be on the record as someone who does not favor the current system, its methods or its ultimate solution.


Solitary confinement with a Hermes scarf would do it for me! :devil:

I think you always have excellent articulations of your view. It's good that you put it in writing for us previously. I like this explanation as well.

As you know we also work with prisoners and rehabilitation. My one real quarrel with it is pedophiles which there remains no evidence they can be rehabilitated. We frequently train large groups of social workers, counselors, guards, etc. and My Father always asks is there anyone in the room who has ever cured or rehabilitated a pedophile and not a single person has even tried to argue the point. The people in the system know it's impossible and these people just game the system, get out, and re-offend. It's whether they get caught again that is in question. I think there is a strong argument that capital punishment is more fitting in these cases even though it is not used by society than in many other cases where it is; because it would actually prevent crimes against children that we "know" are going to happen.

Cheers!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> That is absolute nonsense and scarcely merits a response. If you're claiming that either the RCC or our government has ever claimed this gospel passage means it's ok for the state to have power over human life and death, you're either delusional or an ex-lawyer for George W. Bush. Such extrapolations might exist between your left ear and your right, but certainly not in the laws of our state or Catholic dogma.
> 
> The context makes it perfectly clear that the Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus into committing a specific crime under Roman law (tax resistance). In fact, in spite of Jesus' statement to the contrary, the primary charge leveled against him at his trial before Pontius Pilate still was inciting tax revolt:
> 
> ...


There you go! Well done, Frank! :aportnoy:


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> That is absolute nonsense and scarcely merits a response. If you're claiming that either the RCC or our government has ever claimed this gospel passage means it's ok for the state to have power over human life and death, you're either delusional or an ex-lawyer for George W. Bush. Such extrapolations might exist between your left ear and your right, but certainly not in the laws of our state or Catholic dogma.


First off: That's not wht I said - go back and read it. I said the quote has been used as a foundation for the separate spheres of state and religion for two millenia. Given that, I'll now go further and say, give that context, the state has been executing people since its development and was carried out by both the Romans and the Jews and no one was arguing that it, in itself, was immoral or prohibited by God or an authroity not granted to the state. I don't put a tremendous amount of weight on the Catholic position becasue it is a novel one - as i said Vatican City had a death penalty on the books into the 1920s.

Second: You're wrong Catholic "dogma" does support the deth penalty in cases, i 've already provide you the citation of one example.

Third: Don't cite me Catholic Dogma when you, yourself, reject a good portion of it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Epaminondas said:


> First off: That's not wht I said - go back and read it. I said the quote has been used as a foundation for the separate spheres of state and religion for two millenia.


If you didn't bring up this passage to advance your support of capital punishment, why did you bring it up at all? The separation of powers is a separate issue, and I doubt you'd find anyone on this board who'd argue against it. Certainly I wouldn't.



Epaminondas said:


> Given that, I'll now go further and say, give that context, the state has been executing people since its development and was carried out by both the Romans and the Jews and no one was arguing that it, in itself, was immoral or prohibited by God or an authroity not granted to the state. I don't put a tremendous amount of weight on the Catholic position becasue it is a novel one - as i said Vatican City had a death penalty on the books into the 1920s.


Yes I know, and I repeatedly qualify my reponses by saying I'm not a Roman Catholic. But a position isn't wrong just because it's relatively novel. Dozens of examples of this can be cited over the last few thousand years, everything from slavery to women's suffrage to 3500+ years of institutionalized bigotry against gay people, etc.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> If you didn't bring up this passage to advance your support of capital punishment, why did you bring it up at all? The separation of powers is a separate issue, and I doubt you'd find anyone on this board who'd argue against it. Certainly I wouldn't.


I didn't raise it to argue that capital punishment is good/bad, effective/non-effective, but only to argue that capital punishment is a legitimate act of the state, has deen recognized as such for multiple millenia, and that it is within the "sphere" of state actions even in ancient time. The quote is not merely an admonition to pay taxes, it is an aknowledgment that the state may makes its legitimate demands on subjects/citizens and punish people for failing to meet such demands. It does not usurp/or take a right granted only to God.

It is odd that God used capital punishment as a crucial mechanism in redemptive history. Neither an argument for, or against - just an observation.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Do Orthodox Jews believe in Capital Punishment?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Epaminondas said:


> I didn't raise it to argue that capital punishment is good/bad, effective/non-effective, but only to argue that capital punishment is a legitimate act of the state, has deen recognized as such for multiple millenia, and that it is within the "sphere" of state actions even in ancient time. The quote is not merely an admonition to pay taxes, it is an aknowledgment that the state may makes its legitimate demands on subjects/citizens and punish people for failing to meet such demands. It does not usurp/or take a right granted only to God.


Then logically you are a totalitarian. What right exceeds the power over life and death?



Epaminondas said:


> It is odd that God used capital punishment as a crucial mechanism in redemptive history. Neither an argument for, or against - just an observation.


According to the story, when Cain killed Abel, God did not kill Cain. As a matter of fact, Cain states his intention to circumvent his punishment by dying, and God specifically disallows it.

As for Mosaic Law, it prescribes a lot of punishments we find morally reprehensible today.

EDIT: I just realized you probably weren't referring to Mosaic Law, but to the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus' answer to that was, "You'd have no power over me, if it weren't given to you from above."


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Then logically you are a totalitarian. What right exceeds the power over life and death?


Yes - that's it, FrankDC - every state which ever had or has a death penalty is a totalitarian state. There was no difference between the death penalty in Stalin's Soviet union, Mao's China or the U.S.

As for me, I beleive the state has the powers that the people give to it provided by they are circumscribed by the Constitution - nothing totalitarian about it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Epaminondas said:


> Yes - that's it, FrankDC - every state which ever had or has a death penalty is a totalitarian state. There was no difference between the death penalty in Stalin's Soviet union, Mao's China or the U.S.
> 
> As for me, I beleive the state has the powers that the poeple give to it provided by they are circumscribed by the Constitution - nothing totalitarian about it.


You're trying to justify your position in your own head.

Now try answering my question.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> You're trying to justify your position in your own head.
> 
> Now try answering my question.


No power exceeds it. But the power is given by the people to the government and it is restricted by laws and rules.

Again, I'm not advocating the death penalty. I'm just got into this becasue of your earlier exaggerated statements - or the newer ones such as accusing me of being a totalitarian.

If I could be assured that murderers would face arduous lives involving labor and spartan conditions for the rest of their lives, I'd have no problem abolishing the death penalty.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

The notion that any state that endorses the notion of capital crimes is necessarily totalitarian is absurd. 

The Catholic position regarding the death penalty is a nuanced one. Basically, it is permitted only as a last resort if necessary to safeguard society. Normally, that would invite the prudential question of whether it would be necessary in any individual case. The Catechism goes on to say that this would be unlikely and presumably rare in modern industrial societies, which is a very peculiar statement since it is basically a prudential judgment rather than an articulation of principle. A fair amount of debate has occured among Catholic scholars as to whether the calculus pertains only to the risk of harm from the particular offender or whether any general deterrent effect should be considered, with most scholars favoring the former.

As a Catholic I generally oppose the death penalty and did so even before the most recent developments in Church teaching. That said, there may be cases where it is appropriate even in the US. For instance, murders that take place in prison or are ordered from prison would seem to be fair candidates.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Capital punishment has already been abolished in much of the civilized world. Currently the United States ranks fifth in the number of people intentionally put to death, behind China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran.

IMO nothing more needs to be said on this subject. Of course it's the ultimate form of totalitarianism, how could it be anything else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty#Global_distribution


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Capital punishment has already been abolished in much of the civilized world. Currently the United States ranks fifth in the number of people intentionally put to death, behind China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran.
> 
> IMO nothing more needs to be said on this subject. Of course it's the ultimate form of totalitarianism, how could it be anything else?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty#Global_distribution


I've already explained why it's not totalitarian. Frankly, the IRS scares me more then the death pealty. Perhaps a good portion of the "civlized world" is less democratic than America and their people are not allowed to vote on such issues - talk about totalitarian.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Capital punishment has already been abolished in much of the civilized world. Currently the United States ranks fifth in the number of people intentionally put to death, behind China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran.
> 
> IMO nothing more needs to be said on this subject. Of course it's the ultimate form of totalitarianism, how could it be anything else?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty#Global_distribution


Frank, it is not Totalitarianism because the Citizens and not an Authoritarian Government sit in judgment of the application of the death penalty. Putting someone to death may be a "totality", but it is not the State per se that puts them to death it is the Government of the People - our Citizens. If there was a death penalty applied without due process, a jury trial, and legal representation then you would have an example of a Totalitarian action; such as China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Iran. If I lived in a European State I probably would be anti-death penalty as well. Without the guarantees of our Constitution I can't find the moral authority or clarity for a Government to put people to death either. However, it is not the case in the USA. If a jury of your peers, after a due process, and legal representation decides to put you down - I support that judgment as fair and necessary in a society of the people, by the people, for the people. Perhaps the Pope is making a more general statement, but even if the Pope did say that the death penalty as applied in the USA was Totalitarian that would simply make the Pope wrong. Are you going to argue the infalliblity of the Church and the Pope?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Epaminondas said:


> I've already explained why it's not totalitarian. Frankly, the IRS scares me more then the death pealty. Perhaps a good portion of the "civlized world" is less democratic than America and their people are not allowed to vote on such issues - talk about totalitarian.


The exact opposite is true, with few exceptions.

There's a world map directly below the chart I referenced. Check it out.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Frank, it is not Totalitarianism because the Citizens and not an Authoritarian Government sit in judgment of the application of the death penalty. Putting someone to death may be a "totality", but it is not the State per se that puts them to death it is the Government of the People - our Citizens. If there was a death penalty applied without due process, a jury trial, and legal representation then you would have an example of a Totalitarian action; such as China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Iran. If I lived in a European State I probably would be anti-death penalty as well. Without the guarantees of our Constitution I can't find the moral authority for a Government to put people to death either.
> 
> Even if the Pope did say that the death penalty as applied in the USA was Totalitarian that would simply make the Pope wrong.
> 
> Are you going to argue the infalliblity of the Church and the Pope?


I've already answered your last question. As for your point, I'm glad we have due process, but the issue is whether the state has power over life and death. I believe it does not, as long as it has other means to protect society from criminals.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The exact opposite is true, with few exceptions.
> 
> There's a world map directly below the chart I referenced. Check it out.


I'm reading your link (I'm sure you remember being scolded to DYOH in your previous experiences here in the Interchange - 'Do Your Own Homework'? You should have read this before you linked to it. It deconstructs your argument entirely.)

It says the following about a page or two down from your chart



> The Church classes capital punishment as a form of "lawful slaying", a view derived from the thought of theological authorities such as Thomas Aquinas, who accepted the death penalty as a necessary deterrent and prevention method, but not as a means of vengeance. (See also Aquinas on the death penalty). The Roman Catechism states this teaching thus:
> Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: _In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord_.[85]​


It goes on to put your reference to Pope John Paul II in better context strangely coinciding with what I wrote without having any knowlege of Catholic teaching at all. You seem to have missed this nuance to the Church's teachings. Notice Cardinal Ratzinger (at the time) expresses that there may be distinctive positions on the death penalty, but not so on abortion.



> In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II suggested that capital punishment should be avoided unless it is the only way to defend society from the offender in question, opining that punishment "ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."[86] The most recent edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church restates this view.[87] That the assessment of the contemporary situation advanced by John Paul II is not binding on the faithful was confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger when he wrote in 2004 that,
> if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. *While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia*.[88]​While all Catholics must therefore hold that "*the infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians", the matter of "the advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations*."[89]


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

drilling down on the Thomas Aquinas link is interesting reading as well.



> The following is a summary of Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 146[1], which was written by Aquinas prior to writing the Summa Theologica. St. Thomas was a vocal supporter of the death penalty. This was based on the theory (found in natural moral law), that the state has not only the right, but the duty to protect its citizens from enemies, both from within, and without.
> 
> For those who have been appropriately appointed, there is no sin in administering punishment. For those who refuse to obey God's laws, it is correct for society to rebuke them with civil and criminal sanctions. No one sins working for justice, within the law. Actions that are necessary to preserve the good of society are not inherently evil. The common good of the whole society is greater and better than the good of any particular person. _"The life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men."_ This is likened to the physician who must amputate a diseased limb, or a cancer, for the good of the whole person. He based this on I Corinthians 5, 6: "You know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump of dough?" and I Corinthians 5, 13: "Put away the evil one from among yourselves"; Romans 13,4: "[it is said of earthly power that] he bears not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil"; I Peter 2, 13-14: "Be subjected therefore to every human creature for God's sake: whether to be on the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of good." He believed these passages superseded the text of Exodus 20,13: "Thou shall not kill." This is mentioned again in Matthew 5,21. Also, it is argued that Matthew 13, 30: "Suffer both the weeds and the wheat to grow until the harvest." The harvest was interpreted as meaning the end of the world. This is explained by Matthew 13,38-40.
> 
> ...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

For a very long time capital punishment was incorrectly viewed as a deterrent, and as I said in my initial response in this discussion, if that claim were true, I might be able to find justification for it.

But it's neither a deterrent, nor necessary in civilized counties that have established penal institutions. So what remains? In these cases, in the best case capital punishment exists merely to satiate revenge and hatred, and in the worst case it's legalized murder. IMO.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> For a very long time capital punishment was incorrectly viewed as a deterrent, and as I said in my initial response in this discussion, if that claim were true, I might be able to find justification for it.
> 
> But it's neither a deterrent, nor necessary in civilized counties that have established penal institutions. So what remains? In these cases, in the best case capital punishment exists merely to satiate revenge and hatred, and in the worst case it's legalized murder. IMO.


What is the basis for stating that the death penalty is not a deterrent?

Are you aware that the death penalty was available for a variety of crimes such as kidnapping and rape in the USA and that after it was removed these crimes escalated substantially?

With all the violent repeat offenders we have in the system today how can you claim that the death penalty does not prevent and/or deter crime? If you just removed the repeat crimes it would be a substantial drop in crime in our society.

Are you simply more willing to tolerate crimes against the innocent to make room for your belief that the death penalty is unjustified?

How do you propose to stop a pedophile or rapist that gets 10 years and gets out of prison from harming another citizen?

Is not turning a person with a high probability of repeat offense and the pattern of escalation these perps follow loose into society also endorsing rape and/or murder except it would be the murder of an innocent person?

Can you not see you've argued every angle and not one facet has been substantiated? The Pope thing didn't hold up, then it was Totalitarian and that fell out the bottom, now you're arguing it's not a deterrent and that is clearly untrue as well. Perhaps you should reconsider your oppostion and come back with a more thoughtful argument that can withstand some scrutiny?

It's frustrating to take you at your word, and then investigate your sources and find you misrepresented them either by error or intention.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> What is the basis for stating that the death penalty is not a deterrent?


What was that you said about DYOH?

As for your other straw men, been there, done that, and got the t-shirt.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

There are indeed studies that conclude that the death penalty is not an effective social deterrent; of course as you might expect their are also studies reaching the opposite conclusion, and each side has criticized the other for bias and faulty methodology. Such is inevitably the case when it comes to the social sciences.

Frank, what would you do with prisoners who murder in prison or order murder from prison? Plainly giving them a second life sentence w/o parole would seem a bit silly. And for those serving such sentences, what exactly is the deterrent for them? My prosecutor friends tell me that gang related murders are ordered from prison all the time. In theory, solitary confinement should work, but our actual experience has demonstrated that it too is not very effective. I suppose one could say that such murders are the price we pay in order to be on the France list rather than the China list, but somehow that really doesn't seem all that compelling to me.

Don't get me wrong, our criminal justice system is far too imperfect to cavalierly embrace capital punishment. And there is something disturbing and dehumanizing about taking the life of a helpless man even after a due process finding of guilt of a heinous crime. That said, I worry that your absolutist stand does not necessarily advance charity and justice either. There are victims in prison. And in many cases they are victims of those who are serving a life sentence who believe they have nothing to lose by commiting further violent acts. Personally, I favor a dramatic narrowing of "capital offense," such that the death penalty would still be available but only in truly rare circumstances that are more concretely related to deterrence and the protection of others.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> What was that you said about DYOH?
> 
> As for your other straw men, been there, done that, and got the t-shirt.


Yes; as you stated your original post was unsubstantiated and every attempt to do so of your ourtrageous claims has been thoroughly disproved or found to be a straw man. I'm not surprised all you have left is a t-shirt.



FrankDC said:


> If capital punishment deterred crime, perhaps a case could be made for it. But it simply does not. Every credible study ever done on this issue has resulted in the same conclusion.
> 
> So what's left is, capital punishment is a barbaric revenge game, which accomplishes nothing except to satiate hatred and bring an entire society down to the same level as murderers.
> 
> I have my problems with some positions taken by the Roman Catholic Church, but on this issue they're absolutely correct IMO: capital punishment is the ultimate form of totalitarianism (and yes, I do know they used to support it).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> There are indeed studies that conclude that the death penalty is not an effective social deterrent; of course as you might expect their are also studies reaching the opposite conclusion, and each side has criticized the other for bias and faulty methodology. Such is inevitably the case when it comes to the social sciences.


Yes; and Frank claimed that "every credible study" agreed with him. So, apparently the ones finding it is a deterrent are just not credible, but no reason or substantiation is given.

As his other claims were debunked it seems like the obvious answer to the above is probably the correct one as well.

I would doubt there is a study that claims recipients of capital punishment repeated their crimes.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> There are indeed studies that conclude that the death penalty is not an effective social deterrent; of course as you might expect their are also studies reaching the opposite conclusion, and each side has criticized the other for bias and faulty methodology. Such is inevitably the case when it comes to the social sciences.


Well Mike, if credible (and I mean that word literally) studies exist which do indicate capital punishment is an effective deterrent, I've yet to find one. I've looked at at least three dozen formal studies and all of them have reached the same conclusion.



Mike Petrik said:


> Frank, what would you do with prisoners who murder in prison or order murder from prison? Plainly giving them a second life sentence w/o parole would seem a bit silly. And for those serving such sentences, what exactly is the deterrent for them? My prosecutor friends tell me that gang related murders are ordered from prison all the time. In theory, solitary confinement should work, but our actual experience has demonstrated that it too is not very effective. I suppose one could say that such murders are the price we pay in order to be on the France list rather than the China list, but somehow that really doesn't seem all that compelling to me.


Again, if you know of specific information to back up your assumptions, I'm all ears. I'd be especially interested to learn how solitary confinement isn't an effective solution to the problems you mentioned.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Well Mike, if credible (and I mean that word literally) studies exist which do indicate capital punishment is an effective deterrent, I've yet to find one. I've looked at at least three dozen formal studies and all of them have reached the same conclusion.
> 
> Again, if you know of specific information to back up your assumptions, I'm all ears. I'd be especially interested to learn how solitary confinement isn't an effective solution to the problems you mentioned.


Frank, I do not believe you. It is impossible to find 36 studies (!) reaching the conclusion you favor without bumping into the others. Murders committed in and ordered from prison are not mere assumptions, Frank. There were 5 prison murders commited in NY state prisons between 1996 and 1999 alone. Not sure about the solitary confinement problem to be honest -- that is what I have been told by my prosecutor friends and my nephew the prison guard. I will say that you may have a TV understanding of solitary confinement. It is not really a bad gig, especially in federal prisons. No work, but activists make sure you still get time for exercise and entertainment. In effect, you get special treatment. The threat of solitary confinement hardly deters prison murder, even if its implimentation may.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Frank, I do not believe you. It is impossible to find 36 studies (!) reaching the conclusion you favor without bumping into the others. Murders committed in and ordered from prison are not mere assumptions, Frank. There were 5 prison murders commited in NY state prisons between 1996 and 1999 alone. Not sure about the solitary confinement problem to be honest -- that is what I have been told by my prosecutor friends and my nephew the prison guard. I will say that you may have a TV understanding of solitary confinement. It is not really a bad gig, especially in federal prisons. No work, but activists make sure you still get time for exercise and entertainment. In effect, you get special treatment. The threat of solitary confinement hardly deters prison murder, even if its implimentation may.


Mike, I'm always honest to the best of my ability, and this is no exception. I stressed the word credible in my last response, because the few studies I've seen that claim capital punishment deters crime have all been done by the likes of the Heritage Foundation, or other organizations who were trying to achieve a specific result. Invariably, upon closer scrutiny, these studies have been based on junk science. I should have repeated that same word (credible) instead of using "formal" in the following sentence. It was misleading.

Meanwhile, truly credible studies have, without exception, failed to prove any substantive link between the death penalty and effective reduction in violent crime rates. The advice to DYOH applies here.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Meanwhile, truly credible studies have, without exception, failed to prove any substantive link between the death penalty and effective reduction in violent crime rates. The advice to DYOH applies here.


Frank, this is just weak. DYOH was brought to the Interchange specifically for you, because you either don't provide your own substantiation or when you do frequently reading the entire article you link to disproves your claim. As was the case in this very thread.

If you want to cite a study that you feel is "truly credible" then do so, but make sure you have actually read it and the people meet the level of dispassion you require of the Heritage foundation. If you claim all the people spending money to conduct a study with contrary results have an issue, and we gratiously accept that may be true, how can you claim that is NOT true on the other side of the issue without citing the group and letting them withstand the scrutiny?

Maybe you indeed know of the last honest broker in social and criminal justices studies, but until we see evidence I'm not buying it and I'm shocked if anyone else is.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This shows initiative! 

https://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-43639120091103


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> This shows initiative!
> 
> https://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-43639120091103


So Saudi Arabia's death penalty laws didn't stop this man. Congrats, you just disproved your own deterrent claim.

And to the straw man king, here's one back at ya: do you make the same comment when Iran castrates or hangs homosexuals?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> So Saudi Arabia's death penalty laws didn't stop this man. Congrats, you just disproved your own deterrent claim.
> 
> And to the straw man king, here's one back at ya: do you make the same comment when Iran castrates or hangs homosexuals?


It stops him from doing it _again_. And it will probably deter some others.

Contrary to some people's belief a real deterrent has to be used occasionaly. It's called setting an example and reinforcement. No one has claimed a deterrence eliminates all crime.

One cannot really quantify the number of crimes deterred, but one can quantify the number of repeat offenses made by a dead man.

Perhaps you can compare the USA to Saudi Arabia rape statistics for us and determine a linkage:
https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

As usual, you're on a fool's errand.

I'm also going to ignore the rest of the stupidity in your post.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ksinc said:


> This shows initiative!
> 
> https://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-43639120091103


Ouch!!

Where is the UN??

Amnesty Inernational??

Any Saudi Celebs threatening to leave over the embarrassment??


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Ouch!!
> 
> Where is the UN??
> 
> ...


Sean Penn is busy in Havana... (I would be too) :devil:


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*An accounting perspective*

My only opposition to the death penalty is based on financial grounds. It is my understanding that it costs far more to try out a death penalty case than it does to simply incarcerate the same person for the rest of his or her life. There are definitely crimes out there that are so heinous we can never contemplate allowing the perpetrator any further interaction with humanity. So, lock them up. I don't know which would be worse, putting them in general population, or confining them to 30, 40, or 50 years in a Supermax prison without the hope of any human contact other than an occasional visit from a doctor. Whichever is worse, that is the one we should go with.

If we can ever get our cost per execution below the cost of permanent imprisonment, I would be willing to reconsider the issue.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> John Allen Muhammad, the mastermind behind the sniper attacks that left 10 dead, was executed Tuesday as relatives of the victims watched...


https://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1763813


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You gotta love the anti-death penalty argument "it's too expensive."

It should be, "Anti-death penalty activists in the courts have made it too expensive. Therefore we should give them what they want and abolish it."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You gotta love the anti-death penalty argument "it's too expensive."
> 
> It should be, "Anti-death penalty activists in the courts have made it too expensive. Therefore we should give them what they want and abolish it."


I think you are onto them.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Gee, that's too bad.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

I hope we all feel better about ourselves and our government.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Frank: If you truly feel as negatively towards this flawed but wonderful beloved country of ours, as you claim in your postings, why have you not relocated to a better place, given th nature of this global society in which we live? Lighten up brother...the sun is shining, it's 60+ degrees outside and it's going to be a great day, in spite of your best efforts to achieve otherwise!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Frank: If you truly feel as negatively towards this flawed but wonderful beloved country of ours, as you claim in your postings, why have you not relocated to a better place, given th nature of this global society in which we live? Lighten up brother...the sun is shining, it's 60+ degrees outside and it's going to be a great day, in spite of your best efforts to achieve otherwise!


IMO the love it or leave it mentality is not only cowardly but traitorous: if our founding fathers had had that attitude our country wouldn't even exist.

But at least you're admitting (I think) capital punishment is a flaw. That's how I see it, too. It's legalized murder, one of several forms permitted in our country.


----------



## Corcovado (Nov 24, 2007)

*Strong words. Strong, poorly pronounced words, from a large dog*



FrankDC said:


> For a very long time capital punishment was incorrectly viewed as a deterrent, and as I said in my initial response in this discussion, if that claim were true, I might be able to find justification for it.


So you're morally opposed to capital punishment but if it could be shown to be pragmatic to your satisfaction then you'd reverse your moral position?

If capital punishment is not applied arbitrarily, then it is not totalitarian. (Contrast the U.S.'s or Maryland's judicial system to Stalin personally writing lists of people he wanted eliminated.)

If the prisoner has committed especially horrible crimes, is morally unredeemable, or has continued to orchestrate or commit major felonies while already incarcerated for a previous crime, then I think the death penaly is appropriate.

The biggest argument against the dealth penalty IMO is that it presents a risk of executing an innocent person. It's bad enough when someone spends 20 years in prison for a crime they didn't commit, but at least that person can be released. The innocent dead cannot be brought back to life.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Corcovado said:


> So you're morally opposed to capital punishment but if it could be shown to be pragmatic to your satisfaction then you'd reverse your moral position?
> 
> If capital punishment is not applied arbitrarily, then it is not totalitarian. (Contrast the U.S.'s or Maryland's judicial system to Stalin personally writing lists of people he wanted eliminated.)
> 
> ...


The answer to your first question is yes, partly for the reasons you cite, and because homicide can be justifiable in certain cases. I've never claimed otherwise. But based on research I've seen, I don't think capital punishment is one of them.

I believe the power of the state does not (and should not) extend to absolute power over human life and death. I also believe it allows criminals to avoid just punishment for their crimes. Anyone who's read Genesis knows the story.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> IMO the love it or leave it mentality is not only cowardly but traitorous: if our founding fathers had had that attitude our country wouldn't even exist.


Yes; thank God our Founding Fathers didn't leave one country and go start another .......


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Yes; thank God our Founding Fathers didn't leave one country and go start another .......


Washington, Jefferson and Adams were born here, they didnt like things and worked to change them, right here where they were born


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes; thank God our Founding Fathers didn't leave one country and go start another .......


You're kidding, right? The American colony (like most of Britain's other colonies around the world) was a financial investment. It had zilch to do with "love it or leave it".


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Corcovado said:


> The biggest argument against the dealth penalty IMO is that it presents a risk of executing an innocent person.


Let's just say 1 innocent a year is put to death.

But as a result of an efficient DP process, 20 guards and other inmates are spared.

Aren't we still +19??

Isn't the "greater good" served??


----------



## Corcovado (Nov 24, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Let's just say 1 innocent a year is put to death. But as a result of an efficient DP process, 20 guards and other inmates are spared. Aren't we still +19?? Isn't the "greater good" served??


It is true that sometimes the only way to serve the greater good is to choose the lesser of two evils. However, you have no way of saying with certainty precisely how many guards and other inmates are really spared to compensate for the tragic execution, or perhaps sacrifice is the better word, of one innocent person, especially at the shocking rate of 1 per year.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Let's just say 1 innocent a year is put to death.
> 
> But as a result of an efficient DP process, 20 guards and other inmates are spared.
> 
> ...


Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.

from the Talmud


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

young guy said:


> Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.
> 
> from the Talmud


Not Jewish and have not read the Talmud, but I beleive the Talmud contains no prohibition on the death penalty, and in fact sets forth "humane" rules for its enforcement.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> You're kidding, right? The American colony (like most of Britain's other colonies around the world) was a financial investment. It had zilch to do with "love it or leave it".


Obviously I'm refering to the Country not the Colony.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> Washington, Jefferson and Adams were born here, they didnt like things and worked to change them, right here where they were born


Yes; born in here geographically, but part of another country. The point being they renounced their "citizenship" which is essentially 'Love it or Leave it.' The point is being willing to walk. So too the South's secession.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Yes; born in here geographically, but part of another country. The point being they renounced their "citizenship" which is essentially 'Love it or Leave it.' The point is being willing to walk. So too the South's secession.


they identified more with their colony, virginia/mass, they were virginians before and after they changed their government, they really didnt view themselves as english to begin with, and as for secession - that worked out well


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> they identified more with their colony, virginia/mass, they were virginians before and after they changed their government, they really didnt view themselves as english to begin with, and as for secession - that worked out well


That is the the point; they *acted* on the divergence between how they viewed themselves and their legal status.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> That is the the point; they *acted* on the divergence between how they viewed themselves and their legal status.


they acted but they didnt leave, they became agents for change where they were physically, when people say love it or leave they more often than not refer to physically moving to another place, would you not agree


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> IMO the love it or leave it mentality is not only cowardly but traitorous: if our founding fathers had had that attitude our country wouldn't even exist.
> 
> But at least you're admitting (I think) capital punishment is a flaw. That's how I see it, too. It's legalized murder, one of several forms permitted in our country.


FrankDC: You mis-characterized the intent of my post. I'm hurt...well maybe not hurt but, certainly mildly pissed! I did not say you should "love it or leave it" as you assert, but rather, recognizing the constant aggravation and resultant anger our Nation and her people seem to cause you, as reflected in your postings, I quite appropriately and with only good intent inquired as to why you expose yourself to such constant, personal torture. I do hope you are some day able to find some greater degree of peace and contentment in your life and are able to enjoy a more perfect world, perhaps of your own design!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> FrankDC: You mis-characterized the intent of my post. I'm hurt...well maybe not hurt but, certainly mildly pissed! I did not say you should "love it or leave it" as you assert, but rather, recognizing the constant aggravation and resultant anger our Nation and her people seem to cause you, as reflected in your postings, I quite appropriately and with only good intent inquired as to why you expose yourself to such constant, personal torture. I do hope you are some day able to find some greater degree of peace and contentment in your life and are able to enjoy a more perfect world, perhaps of your own design!


Eagle, I don't believe my posts on the whole reflect any more anger than those of the other (few) left-leaning participants here on AAAC. I know this is pretty much ground zero for people who disagree politically with me, which is the main reason I participate on this board. After an almost two year hiatus from AAAC I realized nothing is more boring than discussing issues with people who agree with me.

As for moving, if I survived 8 years of GWB and 12 years of a Republican controlled Congress, I can handle anything. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> ...
> 
> As for moving, if I survived 8 years of GWB and 12 years of a Republican controlled Congress, I can handle anything. :icon_smile_big:


LOL. Frank, I really do like you and frequently find myself, at least partially agreeing with the points you make. (Please don't let that get out!) Having endured the last 10 months of this Democrat controlled congress, I completely understand your feelings regarding the previous 8 to 12 years of Republican dominance. My ingestion of antacid tabs has gone way up. 

Glad you decided to stay. We are better for your presence!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Frank, I really do like you and frequently find myself, at least partially agreeing with the points you make. (Please don't let that get out!)


I won't tell anyone.



eagle2250 said:


> Glad you decided to stay. We are better for your presence!


Thanks very much. I actually got my first friend request, but I'm afraid the accept button is really a disguised timebomb trigger. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> they acted but they didnt leave, they became agents for change where they were physically, when people say love it or leave they more often than not refer to physically moving to another place, would you not agree


True; more often people do mean that. But you obviously understood that I don't mean that so what is it you want to hear that you haven't already?

Reading the DoI it's clear that they took leave of the legal subjugation of the British crown. A figurative use vs. a literal use is not unusual.

It's like sometimes your wife "leaves you", but she stays physically in the same geography and you change scenery. Leaving can mean different things.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

ksinc said:


> True; more often people do mean that. But you obviously understood that I don't mean that so what is it you want to hear that you haven't already?
> 
> Reading the DoI it's clear that they took leave of the legal subjugation of the British crown. A figurative use vs. a literal use is not unusual.
> 
> It's like sometimes your wife "leaves you", but she stays physically in the same geography and you change scenery. Leaving can mean different things.


The "issue landscape" in 1776 consisted of:

1)Tories of varying degrees of intensity, most of the more hardbitten of whom (if they lived up north) were able to escape to Britain or Canada; in the South, Tories mostly had "nowhere to go" (Spanish Florida being a very different ball of wax from British Canada) which is one reason why the British turned to their nearly-successful Southern strategy after 1778--they felt with some reason that the South would be a friendlier region for British forces to operate and recruit in;

2) a second group of pro-independence "radicals" like the Adams cousins (John and Sam) who wanted out of the British Empire completely (Jefferson was a somewhat late convert to this camp, having written in 1774 a pamphlet called "A Summary View of the Rights of British America," which made a more or less traditional "rights of Englishmen" case for better treatment within the British Empire);

and 3) the most interesting group, in a way, the caught-in-the-middle "conservatives" such as John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, who were part of the imperial protest movement but who weren't quite ready to leave the British Empire. Dickinson, a wealthy Philly merchant, was a brave and honorable man (he would carry a musket in the ranks of PA state troops during the war) but John Adams was ruthless with him in the debates in Congress, pointing out the incoherence of JD's somewhat crazy idea that the reason Americans had organized an army and begun killing British soldiers was so that we could, in essence, make the king and Parliament cut us a better deal and keep us within the British Empire, as if the war was just a tiff and we had laid siege to Boston and were fighting around New York as a form of "tough love."

4) a bunch of other people (the vast majority, almost certainly) who mainly wanted to keep their heads down and stay out of the crossfire. In "Washington's Crossing," David Hackett Fischer tells the amusing story of one NJ family named Van Horn who taught their pretty daughters to sing both "Yankee Doodle" and "God Save the King," performing one or the other depending on which side's young officers happened to come calling for tea and conversation that day.

Among other things, declaring independence was a military and foreign-policy imperative. The Founders well understood that their rebellion could only work with foreign, and above all French, assistance (aiding rebellions on England's flanks had long been a French strategy), and further grasped that the French crown (which began aiding us with secret munitions shipments very early in the armed conflict) would never come "all in" on the rebel side so long as the controversy remained a mere "family quarrel" within the British Empire.

The irony for the British was that winning the Seven Years'/French and Indian War had sown the seeds of the American Revolution, while the irony for the French was that their successfully vented urge to strike back at Britain a dozen years later by aiding the American rebels required bankrupting the French monarchy (which had a creaky, antique system of state finance nowhere near as modern or efficient as Britain's) and hence sowed the seeds of the French Revolution. Lots of ironies in the historical fire.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

^^ Excellent explanation and summary. Thank You. :icon_smile:


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

In a _Newsweek _column the other day warning of our own growing deficit, Niall Ferguson mentioned that by 1788, France was spending nearly 2/3 (62%) of all royal revenues just to make the interest payments on its debt.


----------

