UN asks Texas to commute Mexican's death sentence

[Hot Mega]

Would you favor 7 days a week of seriously hard labor, 16 hours a day? I'd probably settle for that.

Not really a matter of what would satiate us. It's about expiation for the victim.

I believe when you commit some crimes you simply forfeit your right to continue living.

Has nothing to do with vengeance or whether or not the condemned suffers or whatever IMO...it's simply about a just punishment for an act/crime.

 

[D-rock]

I believe when you commit some crimes you simply forfeit your right to continue living.

Just a question, why? I'm just asking out of curiosity.

Unless one thinks at a level of a robot you can't really have expiation or punishment without some level of morality, emotion, or ethicalness in one's world view involved. I would think most laws involving punishment for major crimes come from one or more of those three, and not on the principle of maintaining the concept of order. Even in the later case it could be argued that killing people wouldn't really add to it in a case like this.

 

[Hot Mega]

Just a question, why? I'm just asking out of curiosity.

Unless one thinks at a level of a robot you can't really have expiation or punishment without some level of morality, emotion, or ethicalness in one's world view involved. I would think most laws involving punishment for major crimes come from one or more of those three, and not on the principle of maintaining the concept of order. Even in the later case it could be argued that killing people wouldn't really add to it in a case like this.

For the same reasons I believe (not feel) all crimes deserve proportional punishments.:dunno:

Was that a trick question D?

Disassociation or detachment of emotion from this is pretty simple as it's not necessary to be intimate with the circumstance to readily reconcile a commensurate punishment for an act.

But if you have to attach some level of emotion to this...do it for the innocent victim.:2 cents:

A man rapes then murders a 16 year old girl and you need to ask me why I believe that person has forfeited their right to live? Is the disconnect that wide?

 

[bob_dole4]

:A man rapes then murders a 16 year old girl and you need to ask me why I believe that person has forfeited their right to live? Is the disconnect that wide?

I think the disconnect lies in the separate value you place on these two human lives. The taking of a life is wrong, regardless of circumstance.

 

[Hot Mega]

I think the disconnect lies in the separate value you place on these two human lives. The taking of a life is wrong, regardless of circumstance.

:nono:
1 was innocent of taking a life and the other isn't.

Frankly, I really shouldn't even distinguish your post with a response.

 

[bob_dole4]

:nono:
1 was innocent of taking a life and the other isn't.

If that's the divide you see then I worry about how little you value the so many people that have taken a life. Or the perpetual wave you create by having another take the life of someone else who took a life of someone else who took a life of someone else who took a life.....

 

[Legzman]

make him a crispy enchilada!

 

[Jagger69]

Frankly, I really shouldn't even distinguish your post with a response.

Why not, 'Mega? You and I have had this exact debate here before. :dunno:

 

[mrzbone]

bush killed thousands of people in iraq?

 

[Hot Mega]

:nono:
1 was innocent of taking a life and the other isn't.

Frankly, I really shouldn't even distinguish your post with a response.

If that's the divide you see then I worry about how little you value the so many people that have taken a life. Or the perpetual wave you create by having another take the life of someone else who took a life of someone else who took a life of someone else who took a life.....

Why not, 'Mega? You and I have had this exact debate here before. :dunno:

Really Jag?? You want me to go there? You and I have debated this subject but I don't even think you've gone so far as to suggest the life in the case of a rapist and murderer was equivalent to the life he raped and snuffed out. If you have then I missed it and that perspective is equally not deserving of even addressing.

But if you want me to address it...I will out of respect for you as a poster here. So..to this...vvv

I think the disconnect lies in the separate value you place on these two human lives. The taking of a life is wrong, regardless of circumstance.

Really??? (Watch this.)

So it's you and some POS and the POS is ready to take your life. Is it okay for you to eradicate said POS in an effort to preserve your own life? Presumably a right-minded person answers this question with a "yes" then offers the predictable qualifier but that's in self-defense.

So then the position that taking a life is wrong no matter the circumstance is now voided, right?

But let's take it a step further. How about it's you, an innocent individual or loved one and some POS. Said POS is readying to snuff out the life of the innocent or loved one. Is it still okay to eradicate said POS in an effort to preserve the life of the innocent or loved one? Presuming a right-minded person answers this, "yes..but.....".

So we've not just established that it's acceptable to take a life on the basis of self-defense but also on the basis of defending an innocent.

Now that we're there...why would it be unacceptable to eradicate a POS in expiation for an innocent life they have snuffed out?

 

[Will E Worm]

I think the disconnect lies in the separate value you place on these two human lives. The taking of a life is wrong, regardless of circumstance.

I guess you're a plain and honest man? :1orglaugh

Take a life forfeit your life. Nuff said. :hatsoff:

make him a crispy enchilada!

This is what should happen to anyone like him. :flame:

Even if the person is not murdered.

 

[Jagger69]

Really Jag?? You want me to go there? You and I have debated this subject but I don't even think you've gone so far as to suggest the life in the case of a rapist and murderer was equivalent to the life he raped and snuffed out. If you have then I missed it and that perspective is equally not deserving of even addressing.

But if you want me to address it...I will out of respect for you as a poster here. So..to this...vvv

No....you and I have already BEEN there. I'm not interested in trying to convince you or anyone else on this forum any further than I already have that the death penalty is inherently wrong under any condition (other than my continued employment of my signature). If You Missed that point in our earlier discussions, I suggest you go back and revisit those threads. Why you would out of hand simply refuse to address it with another poster is what I brought into question. I urge you to go ahead and make your argument that there are circumstances when killing people is a good thing with bob_dole4 as he has challenged you to do. If you choose not to, that's OK too. It just surprised me that you, above anyone else, would choose to avoid a good debate when given the chance to engage in one.

Either way, have a happy and safe 4th of July.

 

[D-rock]

So we've not just established that it's acceptable to take a life on the basis of self-defense but also on the basis of defending an innocent.

Now that we're there...why would it be unacceptable to eradicate a POS in expiation for an innocent life they have snuffed out?

I don't understand your first sentence. "Defending the innocent" sounds a lot like "self-defense" just worded a little differently.

Your playing a little fast and lose with some of your explanations here, and asking loaded questions. You can't take a hypothetical situation where it's known, like one is magically clairvoyant or psychic on the subject, that a person will harm another, or even that it's a likely possibility, and justify that in killing them when the reality is your implying it should also work that way for situations where that's not the case or in cases where that might very well be impossible. None of us is God and can know the future like that.

So no, what you asked isn't the equivalent of self defense when the person is already locked up, both because there isn't enough evidence in the vast majority real life situations to know to that degree that the person will intend to harm other people in the future, and furthermore even in situations where that might be the case you would have to show that killing that person was the only reasonable alternative left to avoid that person harming others to have it be any kind of self-defense of oneself or others.

Furthermore you're somehow still equating the killing of a person as punishment as an extension of killing in self-defense when they are still two separate things, at least in the modernized civilized world with reliable prisons and complex justice systems, and you still have yet to link them other than the thoughts of the logical leap you took in your last part of the quote above.

As far as viewing the value of one person's life over another, I take the view I don't have the wisdom, intelligence, or righteousness to ever make that determination and in my view neither does or ever will any other person. The only time it's permissible to take another's life in my view is when it's in self-defense or there is no other reasonable choice left to preserve the safety of others. I think when value starts getting put on the worth of people's existence like that it also creates the slippery slope that will eventually lead to rationalizations for things much worse than even that, as has happened before. I also try to hate what people do and not the people themselves, and as much as I know it's probably a extreme rarity and I know and want people to serve proper justice for their acts I would want them to change their ways and become better people as much or more than them getting punished. There might be times when one has to kill another justifiably in my opinion and it's sad, but also understandable. It's just that punishment isn't one of those instances where it should happen in my view.

 

[Hot Mega]

No....you and I have already BEEN there. I'm not interested in trying to convince you or anyone else on this forum any further than I already have that the death penalty is inherently wrong under any condition (other than my continued employment of my signature). If You Missed that point in our earlier discussions, I suggest you go back and revisit those threads. Why you would out of hand simply refuse to address it with another poster is what I brought into question. I urge you to go ahead and make your argument that there are circumstances when killing people is a good thing with bob_dole4 as he has challenged you to do. If you choose not to, that's OK too. It just surprised me that you, above anyone else, would choose to avoid a good debate when given the chance to engage in one.

Either way, have a happy and safe 4th of July.

You feel the death penalty is wrong. I gathered that from our erstwhile debates. What I have never seen you do or don't recall you doing is taking it a step further in authoring the opinion that the life of someone who's committed a heinous crime is of equal value to the life that they have taken.

If you have then I missed it and that is a profoundly unbelievable point of view.

That aside, the other point I addressed that I didn't really think worth addressing was the notion that taking a life in any circumstance is wrong. That is another profoundly unbelievable point of view when you consider some of the circumstances in which it might come down to you or a loved one's life in the balance that must be defended possibly at the cost of a death.

But hey, like you said...you and I have gone on this merry-go-round before.

I don't understand your first sentence. "Defending the innocent" sounds a lot like "self-defense" just worded a little differently.

How so???

I guess I could address it simpler then. If you're a person who (as b dole suggests) believes that killing in any circumstance is 'wrong'...then;

Is it wrong to kill someone in order to save yourself from someone who is trying to kill you?

Is it wrong to kill someone in order to save a third party from someone who is trying to kill them?

If the answers to both of those questions is, 'yes' then why is it wrong to kill someone who has killed someone else (under premeditated circumstances)?

After doing away with the unrealistic notion that killing in all cases is wrong we're left with question of exigence.

In other words, you (and others) believe that exigence is no longer a circumstance in a case where the person is in custody. So therefore it would be wrong to kill a person just because they killed someone else--and that denying them their freedom for life is sufficient punishment.

I believe in the exigency of circumstance too and it isn't even a question in my mind that it's appropriate, legal, ethical, etc., to stop someone from killing you or some other innocent person by killing them.

I take it a step further and say that since the above is a virtuous act it is also virtuous to go beyond taking the person's freedom away but to also forfeit their right to live under the same premise and authority of denying them their freedom.

 

[Jagger69]

You feel the death penalty is wrong. I gathered that from our erstwhile debates. What I have never seen you do or don't recall you doing is taking it a step further in authoring the opinion that the life of someone who's committed a heinous crime is of equal value to the life that they have taken.

If you have then I missed it and that is a profoundly unbelievable point of view.

Sorry to be so tardy in my response, 'Mega....I just now saw your post. I also do not wish to turn this into another debate on the death penalty but your misunderstanding of my position compel me to clarify things with you.

Obviously, you are correct that I feel the death penalty is inherently wrong. That point of view is based on several premises but foremost among them is that EVERY human life is sacrosanct without prejudice. You say that represents a "profoundly unbelievable point of view" but I would reply to you that to assign yourself or any other human being as being qualified or empowered to judge the relative value of one life over another to be the profoundly unbelievable point of view. There is no differentiation between the value of the lives of any two individuals who walk the earth from my perspective. I'm not alone in this assessment (reference the basic American belief as cited by Thomas Jefferson that "All men are created equal" for instance). Do you not believe Jefferson's statement to be true? If not, what gives you the right, qualification or authority to make the judgment of the relative value of one life over another? And lastly, when you choose to devalue the life of a human being to the point where you would deliberately take action to end that life for no reason other than you choose to do so (the individual is incarcerated and no longer represents any threat to anyone), how does that differentiate you from the very actions that the murderer himself committed when he perpetrated the original act of murder?

In a nutshell, these are the reasons the death penalty makes no sense to me and cannot be legitimately justified under any circumstance unless you simply desire blood vengeance. If that's the case, I can understand the emotion even though I do not agree with it whatsoever.

Sorry if you have heretofore misunderstood my position on this and I hope that I have made it crystal clear to you in this post. I believe that you realize that I respect your opinion but I fail to understand your thinking regarding this issue.