The Death Penalty.

I'm not flaming,surly death is the worst sentance possible, and you feel that only murder may be punishable by death, so it's logical to assume you see murder as the worst act possible, if otherwise please state so and I shall retract my wrong assumption. I honestly wasn't sure that Paul was NT (which I guess is pretty bad but that's the truth)

Noir I'm not trying to judge this. The Bible says "eye for eye". You could argue that everything else on a case-by-case basis on what could be more evil, and some particular crimes may well be.

ok, if an eye for an eye it is then who's going to rape the rapists?

I believe in the death penalty for murderers and child molesters. Studies have shown they are never rehabilitated, despite what some quacks will have you believe.

After listening to Noir pontificate, I think I'll add liberals to the list as well.

Noir wrote:ok, if an eye for an eye it is then who's going to rape the rapists?

Child molestors don't fair too well in American prisons.

Southern Man wrote:

Noir wrote:ok, if an eye for an eye it is then who's going to rape the rapists?

Child molestors don't fair too well in American prisons.

Pfcorse they don't get on well, but I'm sure they aren't raped, I just find it odd that someone would want a justice system based on 'an eye for an eye' and yet only have murderers revive the 'eye for an eye' punishment.

Be serious Noir, no one's going to sanction State- sponsored forced rape.

Also, I suggest that you read up on what really happens inside prisons.

and yet people do support state sponsered murder =/

We've been over that before. If you disagree, then fine, but don't be childish about it.

Noir wrote:and yet people do support state sponsered murder =/

It's not "murder," it's "elimination of a cancer on society."

If you were diagnosed with cancer, and if you didn't have it removed you'd die, would you not have it removed? Same with society. A person that kills other people is a cancer on society, and has to be removed for the very same reasons bro.

it is the premeditated killing of a human, that is murder.

I agree that they should be removed, removed by locking them away, not by murder.

Pale Rider wrote:

Diuretic wrote:Usual response from me. No. The criminal justice system isn't good enough that I'd support the death penalty.

Even with eye an witness, video, and DNA evidence? I don't think anything could be any more definitively proven. If you going to say no punishment after that amount of proof, then you may as well say you don't want anyone convicted of anything. Just throw the court system out.

Pale, eye witnesses are hopeless, not because they're liars but because of human fallibility when it comes to the senses. Video is good but unless it's actually a video of the crime taking place it's just evidence of what happened later on. DNA isn't a magic bullet. It can be exculpatory that's true. But on the prosecution side DNA can be tampered with (I can lift your finger prints from place A and put them in place B, do you want to know what I could do with your DNA?) and even in the analysis process it can be unintentionally corrupted. Yes, it's very useful, but, as I said no magic bullet.

I'm quite happy to accept that the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, works (mostly) in criminal trials. The thing that has to be understood is that a criminal trial is an exercise in logic, it's not a search for factual truth. What it is is a search for "procedural truth". It can and does get things wrong. But since it's a human process that's to be expected. And that's why I continue to hold that there is too much risk of an innocent person being executed if the death penalty is in place.

Southern Man wrote:Noir I'm not trying to judge this. The Bible says "eye for eye". You could argue that everything else on a case-by-case basis on what could be more evil, and some particular crimes may well be.

That's the old Hebraic law and it in itself reflected the Babylonian law before it. An eye for an eye, but not two eyes for one eye. It's about a proportional response. But that's based primarily on compensation and not so much punishment that is supposed to be corrective and a deterrent, among other things. I'm not arguing against retribution because society should be able to seek retribution from criminals, but when the old nostrum is brought out it's sometimes usefull to think about its origins.

Southern Man wrote:Be serious Noir, no one's going to sanction State- sponsored forced rape.

Also, I suggest that you read up on what really happens inside prisons.

What happens inside prisons is pretty bloody awful. But strangely enough child sex offenders (at least where I am) don't get brutalised like the rest of the prison population because they're usually in maximum security. Mind you, having a video camera on 24 hours a day, watching you take a leak, crap, masturbate or whatever, is of itself not pleasant. But I have to admit, I've got no pity for child sex offenders so they can put up with it or take their chances in Exercise Yard 3 with Bubba and the boys.

Noir wrote:it is the premeditated killing of a human, that is murder.

I agree that they should be removed, removed by locking them away, not by murder.

With that logic you should allow a tumor to run its course and ravage your body because it is a living thing and if you go thru chemo you would be murdering it. In fact I hope you dont squish bugs either. Or for that matter sneeze.


Because all of that makes you a fuckin murderer.

Diuretic wrote:

Pale Rider wrote:

Diuretic wrote:Usual response from me. No. The criminal justice system isn't good enough that I'd support the death penalty.

Even with eye an witness, video, and DNA evidence? I don't think anything could be any more definitively proven. If you going to say no punishment after that amount of proof, then you may as well say you don't want anyone convicted of anything. Just throw the court system out.

Pale, eye witnesses are hopeless, not because they're liars but because of human fallibility when it comes to the senses. Video is good but unless it's actually a video of the crime taking place it's just evidence of what happened later on. DNA isn't a magic bullet. It can be exculpatory that's true. But on the prosecution side DNA can be tampered with (I can lift your finger prints from place A and put them in place B, do you want to know what I could do with your DNA?) and even in the analysis process it can be unintentionally corrupted. Yes, it's very useful, but, as I said no magic bullet.

I'm quite happy to accept that the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, works (mostly) in criminal trials. The thing that has to be understood is that a criminal trial is an exercise in logic, it's not a search for factual truth. What it is is a search for "procedural truth". It can and does get things wrong. But since it's a human process that's to be expected. And that's why I continue to hold that there is too much risk of an innocent person being executed if the death penalty is in place.

You know that all sounds nice but in the real world if someone murdered your family AND you witnessed it AND you went to court AND the jury used YOUR line of reasoning to find him not guilty I can GUARAN-FUCKIN_TE you that you would change your mind really fuckin quickly after that.

Noir wrote:and yet people do support state sponsered murder =/

For a guy who thinks meat is murder, anything is murder. It's the approved law of the land and there are checks and balances in place to stop it. It's also the only way to ensure a murderer doesn't get another chance to commit crime. Lastly, since you're throwing biblical quotes around, if it truly is between him and God for his punishment, we are simply arranging the meeting.

I do not see everyting as murder, I see the deliberate unnessessory (sp?) killing of any animal as murder, wheather it's man, cow or dog.

Well if you accept the law of the land over personal morals just because it's the law of the land then fair enough, but I place my morals before the law of the land. The law of the land in 1930's Germany was that the Jews should not be treated as Germans, and should be punished, just because it's the lA of the land doesn't make it right.

And what crime is this murderer going to commit when he is locked up?

You miss the point, it is not for us to 'arrange' anymeeting with God, I'm sure he's able to book his own apointments.

Noir wrote:

You miss the point, it is not for us to 'arrange' anymeeting with God, I'm sure he's able to book his own apointments.

Yes it is. Why do you think we are on this planet.

Diuretic wrote:

Southern Man wrote:Noir I'm not trying to judge this. The Bible says "eye for eye". You could argue that everything else on a case-by-case basis on what could be more evil, and some particular crimes may well be.

That's the old Hebraic law and it in itself reflected the Babylonian law before it. An eye for an eye, but not two eyes for one eye. It's about a proportional response. But that's based primarily on compensation and not so much punishment that is supposed to be corrective and a deterrent, among other things. I'm not arguing against retribution because society should be able to seek retribution from criminals, but when the old nostrum is brought out it's sometimes usefull to think about its origins.

I would argue that the death penalty deters crime, so for a State not to adopt it and enforce it then more innocent people will be murdered.

theironlady wrote:

Noir wrote:

You miss the point, it is not for us to 'arrange' anymeeting with God, I'm sure he's able to book his own apointments.

Yes it is. Why do you think we are on this planet.

Well I think we are on this planet cus I believe in the certainty of chance.

Noir wrote:and yet people do support state sponsered murder =/

Just consider it as society "taking out the trash." It's a cleansing.

Diuretic wrote:

Pale Rider wrote:

Diuretic wrote:Usual response from me. No. The criminal justice system isn't good enough that I'd support the death penalty.

Even with eye an witness, video, and DNA evidence? I don't think anything could be any more definitively proven. If you going to say no punishment after that amount of proof, then you may as well say you don't want anyone convicted of anything. Just throw the court system out.

Pale, eye witnesses are hopeless, not because they're liars but because of human fallibility when it comes to the senses. Video is good but unless it's actually a video of the crime taking place it's just evidence of what happened later on. DNA isn't a magic bullet. It can be exculpatory that's true. But on the prosecution side DNA can be tampered with (I can lift your finger prints from place A and put them in place B, do you want to know what I could do with your DNA?) and even in the analysis process it can be unintentionally corrupted. Yes, it's very useful, but, as I said no magic bullet.

I'm quite happy to accept that the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, works (mostly) in criminal trials. The thing that has to be understood is that a criminal trial is an exercise in logic, it's not a search for factual truth. What it is is a search for "procedural truth". It can and does get things wrong. But since it's a human process that's to be expected. And that's why I continue to hold that there is too much risk of an innocent person being executed if the death penalty is in place.

Very true... nothing is perfect, especially our court system. But we have to have something, and we have to do something, because without a deterrent, crime would run rampant.

But if fifteen people witness a guy kneeling over somebody repeatedly stabbing them in the chest, and that persons dies, I'd take the word of those fifteen people. Especially if the person doing all the stabbing was photographed in the act and was covered with the victims blood. I think a jury would take that as proof, beyond a shadow of doubt.

My point is, you CAN be caught red handed or in the act of committing a crime, even murder. You then get your day in court to plead how you want. But I do believe that if the preponderance of evidence is overwhelmingly against you, and it's murder you've been convicted of, you should die.

Noir wrote:

theironlady wrote:

Noir wrote:

You miss the point, it is not for us to 'arrange' anymeeting with God, I'm sure he's able to book his own apointments.

Yes it is. Why do you think we are on this planet.

Well I think we are on this planet cus I believe in the certainty of chance.

I believe we were put here, by God. No chance about it.

Noir wrote:I do not see everyting as murder, I see the deliberate unnessessory (sp?) killing of any animal as murder, wheather it's man, cow or dog.

Is it unncessary to execute a convicted murderer? I don't think so, so it must not be murder then.

Noir wrote:
Well if you accept the law of the land over personal morals just because it's the law of the land then fair enough, but I place my morals before the law of the land. The law of the land in 1930's Germany was that the Jews should not be treated as Germans, and should be punished, just because it's the lA of the land doesn't make it right.

And if you lived in the United States your morals would probably accept that executing convicted murderers is a good thing, unless you lived in one of those sissy places like San fran. We do things differently here then you guys, which is why we are a different country. Quit trying to place your stupid moral on us.

Noir wrote:
And what crime is this murderer going to commit when he is locked up?

Are you really that stupid that I have to answer this question? Plenty of them commit crimes in jail. Plus there are escapes from jail and parole that they get. With an execution, that's it. Your murderer gets to go before THE MAN and explain himself.

Noir wrote:
You miss the point, it is not for us to 'arrange' anymeeting with God, I'm sure he's able to book his own apointments.

Never assume. And who says it's not for us to arrange the meeting? Have you spoken personally to God lately and he's told you he's overbooked?