Death Penalty

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 27 May 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Kiama	27 May 2002
I'm on a bit of an 'issues' drive here: i find that discussing deep issues which have a big impact on us and how we live is very rewarding... Now, I am asking you what you think of the death penalty? The UK doesn't have it anymore, although I think we still have it for very bad military offences such as esopinage... (I THINK! I've forgotten exactly, but it might have been one of th elast death penalty offences abolished...) I'm not sure what treason gets you here... I also know that the USA has the death penalty in quite a few of its States, but from what I've read from Americans, most of them are against the death penalty... What do you guys think? What are the adavantages and disadvanatages of the Detah Penalty? And do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Are we to believe Mahatma Gandhi when he famously said: "An eye for an eye, and teh world would soon be blind?" Or are we to remember that most 'life sentences', esp. those in the UK, are actually only about 15 years, and the criminal gets out on good behaviour... And the fact that if we keep them in jail for life, the innocent taxpayer has to pay for them... ANd over here in the UK, there is lots of scandal going on about how these criminals are living a life most of us wish we could afford. The famous killers of Jamie Bulger were given an excellent one-to-one education, TV's, music systems, exercise machines, the lastest computers and games.... Something my little sisters and me never had. Yet my parents paid for all this out of their hard earned wages...! Well, I can empathise with both sides of the argument here, so I am pretty much undecided on this issue: Whilst I am not sure taking life is an impression of justice, and indeed, I'm not sure its morally right, I am very angry at the prison system which gives murderers better lives than those of us who have worked hard every single day of our lives, earning a pittance wage, and have never done anything wrong! Kiama

wavebreaker	27 May 2002
My opinion on this is very clear: I'm against the death penalty. I'd like to quote an Amnesty International slogan to explain why: "why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong". That's exactly my opinion in a nutshell: to me, killing is never right, whether it's done by a murderer or by the government. People sometimes ask me: what if one of your family members would be killed in some terrible way, would you still be against the death penalty for the murderer? Yes, I would. Because I don't see how it would help me to see someone else killed. As for people leading a luxury life in prison: I'm not so sure about that. Speaking just for myself: they could give me all the luxury in the world, but if at the same time I wouldn't be able to do as I pleased and I would constantly be controlled by prison law, that luxury would mean nothing to me. I'm definitely not saying that prisoners should lead a luxury life (and I doubt many of them do, although I suppose prison conditions will vary in different countries) but I think you shouldn't forget that being imprisoned itself is already a big punishment for most people, so I wouldn't exactly call this a "better life". One other thing: I think a life sentence should really be for life, and not just 15 years or so. I may be against the death penalty, but that doesn't mean serious crimes shouldn't be punished severely.

Kiama	27 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by tarotlady_nl As for people leading a luxury life in prison: I'm not so sure about that. Speaking just for myself: they could give me all the luxury in the world, but if at the same time I wouldn't be able to do as I pleased and I would constantly be controlled by prison law, that luxury would mean nothing to me. I'm definitely not saying that prisoners should lead a luxury life (and I doubt many of them do, although I suppose prison conditions will vary in different countries) but I think you shouldn't forget that being imprisoned itself is already a big punishment for most people, so I wouldn't exactly call this a "better life". My point with saying this, as horrid as it may sound, is to point out the economically unfriendly methods we have in prison. Yes, the criminal may still havea horrible life, but we, tha taxpayer, are paying for them out of our own pockets: We don't have anything to do with them, their crime, their life outside of prison, etc, so why should we pay? Otherwise, I agree with you that life sentences should mean life sentences, and that severe crimes should be punished severely... Otherwise, its not justice is it? And of course, with the death penalty, we have the problem that we might execute an innocent person... Kiama

wavebreaker	27 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama My point with saying this, as horrid as it may sound, is to point out the economically unfriendly methods we have in prison. Yes, the criminal may still havea horrible life, but we, tha taxpayer, are paying for them out of our own pockets: We don't have anything to do with them, their crime, their life outside of prison, etc, so why should we pay? The death penalty can be very expensive too. I once read in a report on the death penalty in the US that the way the death penalty is instituted there, it is more expensive than a life sentence. This is mainly because of all the court cases, legal assistance for the defendant, automatic appeals, etc. And I suppose keeping someone on death row, with all the extra security, is a lot more expensive than keeping someone in a regular prison. With people often being kept on death row for 10 years or even longer, it might be more economical to put them in a regular prison. I agree with you though, that the taxpayer shouldn't really be paying for maintaining prisoners. I think they should work to earn their own living. To be honest, I don't even know whether that's the case or not in our prisons... Luckily, I've never been able to find that out and I don't really intend to either... ;)

Faerie Lin	27 May 2002
Very good points you two have made! This makes me think about how many criminals are in prison for petty things, taking up space that can be made for the more serious offenders. Anyhow back to the subject at hand. I am against the death penalty.

Sam	27 May 2002
disadavantages:if you already kill an "offender", but the offender is later proven mistrialed or innocent, it'll be too late. advantages:gets crazy criminals off the streets.

Yarnie	27 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Chunkypuffs disadavantages:if you already kill an "offender", but the offender is later proven mistrialed or innocent, it'll be too late. advantages:gets crazy criminals off the streets. Except that, at least here in the USA, "crazy" criminals get off with psychiatric treatment...because they get off with "Not Guilty by reason of Insanity" pleas. I've avoided this thread since it was first posted because on this forum this issue promises to be a huge miasmic mess for anyone who is in favor of the death penalty. Therefore, I will state my opinion and leave it at that. I am in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes. Additionally, I think that you will find that a majority of Americans are also in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes (i.e. murder, rape, treason, terrorism, etc.). If that were not the case, the death penalty would not be an option here. If you poll Americans on this forum, yes, you might think that no one is in favor of the death penalty here. However, visit certain other fora (off the top of my head I can name several) and you will find about 100% support for the death penalty. Depends on where you look.

Hush	27 May 2002
yes, the prison system is awful...buyt death penalties are horrible, they make us just as guilty as the murderer being killed. they need to sort out the prison systems, basically.

Umbrae	27 May 2002
I cannot sit by and say nothing, however I understand ahead of time the lash that may occur. However I was asked for my opinion. (If you are going to lash back, please take the time to read and understand the entire post). If you purchase a Tarot deck with cards missing you appeal to the kindness of the manufacturer. Should you purchase a toaster at the store and it does not work properly, it gets returned to the store. Should your heater or automobile malfunction and cause death or dismemberment, it is returned to the manufacturer. Truly horrible dangerous defects are returned to the manufacturer. The same should be with dangerous humans. Return them to the manufacturer. Out here (State of Washington), a while back, a few guys were executed. Chapman and Dodd, I shall use as examples. Both were guilty…they did it. Killed and raped children (details spared) and adults. There was NO question of guilt. In the case of Dodd, he admitted it, and asked for the death penalty with no appeals. Think on that… Taxpayers (you and I) will support the criminal with life in prison. It costs a lot. We pay. The victims, never got a second chance. Never got to call their loved ones to say goodbye. Never got a chance for a ‘last meal’. They were brutalized and killed. Perhaps we should do something more different. Give them a canned ham and a bottle of scotch, and parachute them into the center of the ‘empty quarter’ of the Arabian Peninsula. I am not discussing methods. I am discussing the rights of the victim (who had none), versus the rights of the slayer. If the slayer destroys, without regard…what does he deserve? Does he deserve to eat? Even crows deserve to eat! All need sustenance. Even trees and grass require nourishment that is dependant on the lives of others. Nature was never benevolent or fair. However, we must all live together. Cruelty is neither gracious nor defensible. Do not ‘quote’ or take these words to bend them to your argument. A person has an opinion. It is only an opinion. It is never a question of right or wrong. In a nonjudgmental world, there were no absolutes, no fixed truths, no mandatory behavior, no thou-shalt-nots, there are no convictions. No principals to stand up to. It requires courage to have and uphold the moral convictions of right and wrong. You should confront evil, no matter where you find it, and stand up to it. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Most people have no principles. Principles are what you fight for. Most folks go though a lifetime unchallenged except at the final moment. There are few arenas in which to test themselves. Sometimes you must risk all, and take a stand. Who shall cry for the victims? I shall, even if I must stand alone.

Hush	27 May 2002
umbrae...i think what you said made a lot of sense :) dont worry about back lash, you made a decent point.

Emily	27 May 2002
I agree with the death penalty. I think that if a person takes a life then theirs should be ended. There are too many child/adult murderers in our jails who will come out even if they've been given life. Even if life sentence meant life why should they live if they've killed? Why do we keep serial killers who given the chance will do it again in our jails - are they ever changed or reformed when they come out? I do think there are the exceptions like the battered wife who kills her husband after years of abuse, or causing accidental deaths - these are not premediated and shouldn't be given the death penalty. Many years ago, when the UK did have the death penalty, people who were supposedly innocent were executed but, hopefully, with the standards of forensic evidence this might not happen. With something as serious as the death penalty mistakes shouldn't happen. Just my views

Diana	27 May 2002
Umbrae: well said! What bothers me so much with the death penalty is that there are innocent people who are executed. Everyone knows there are innocent people on death-row. That upsets me no end. But I if we could be 100%, but I mean really 100% sure that the people are guilty of horrific murders, then I wouldn't bat an eyelid about getting them out of our society. Sure, they it's not a big deal for them being killed - some of them suffer more punishment being in a prison for the rest of their lives. But still, I don't see why I should pay for their keep out of my tax money. I don't know if I go as far as a scientist friend of mine who thinks these people should be removed as quickly as possible from what he calls the "gene pool" though. I'm not sure that it is gene related. But who knows?

Umbrae	27 May 2002
A battered wife who kills her abuser should be given a medal.

Malachite	27 May 2002
Diana:..I know your not saying it yourself,but I have to say, thats not science. He/she might be a scientist, but that definetly isn't science.. Personally, I think there is no excuse for the death penalty. If society was better in the first place, there would be no murders but crimes of passion, like the wife and her violent husband, or the man who comes home and finds his wife doing the thing with the next door neighbour... We cannot simply brush the dirt in society under the carpet, run a thousand volts through it, and say we're doing ok, thankyou very much. If there is an illness, you treat the cause, not the sympton. The same should be true in society. A better education program is cheaper than a dozen penitentiaries, an electric chair, and food for a generation to eat before they are murdered for being murderers. As in the case with the drugs debate, it is the circumstances and judgement of society that makes the decision. How many murders are there amongst the people in the middle of the Amazon Jungle?..Not many, I suspect. People murder for reasons. Be it poverty and hunger, or racial hatred, or greed, or sincere mental illness. Take away the cause, and you take away the problem. Take away the results, and the problem will still keep on going.

Malachite	27 May 2002
Oh, btw.... We celebrate people who killed hundreds single-handed in the wars throughout our history, and they killed... We have entertainment where we glory in the fiction of death... But when one person kills another, we have different rules... Why? (sorry, its off topic, but I had to ask...;))

Yarnie	27 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Malachite Oh, btw.... We celebrate people who killed hundreds single-handed in the wars throughout our history, and they killed... We have entertainment where we glory in the fiction of death... But when one person kills another, we have different rules... Why? (sorry, its off topic, but I had to ask...;)) Killing during wartime and murder are two totally different things. And Utopia will never be attained for the very fact that humans are fallible. There will always be the Jeffrey Dahmers, John Wayne Gayces, Ted Bundys, Ted Koczinskys, and Timothy McVeighs. Not to mention that certain religions would need to be eradicated before you could attain any semblance of Utopia. Would you be willing to do that to attain it? Would you be willing to commit the genocide necessary to "make society better"? I find it very strange that people of a certain political persuasion tend to advocate institutionally legalized theft as a way to prevent the "causes" of crimes like murder and rape. [[[note: this is not a jab at anyone specifically...it is a commentary on the socialist viewpoint!!! nothin personal is intended, so please do not take it that way!!!]]] I'll just leave it at that....

Mermaid	27 May 2002
I don't know if I agree with the death penalty in theory. But I do know that, in practice, there is ALWAYS a possibility that an innocent person will be killed for someone elses crime. In the US, there are plently of people on death row for crimes that they didn't commit. If we end up killing innocent people, we are no better than the criminals themselves. Of course, it is also unfair to lock people up for crimes they didn't commit. But at least we have the chance to release them if we realise the truth. If innocent people are put to death, their families will suffer for the rest of their lives because there is no bringing them back. Sure - if the legal system was always right when it condemned people, I'd be willing to consider the death penalty for the very worst crimes. But I wouldn't trust my life to our screwed up legal system - so I don't feel that I can trust any one elses life to it! Just my (rather garbled) 2 cents :) Yarnie - why are war and murder different? Isn't war just murder on a much larger scale? I'm interested, but I didn't get your logic.

Yarnie	27 May 2002
The quick answer is that murder is personal and is a violation of the laws of society. It is exclusively for some personal gain and society's detriment. When a society invokes the death penalty, the result is for the benefit of everyone in that society, not any one individual; therefore, the death penalty cannot fall into the realm of murder, but of societal punishment. Warfare, on the other hand, falls outside the conscripts of societal laws because it is a conflict (whether justified or not) between two vying societies--sometimes for survival, sometimes for societal gain. As a member of a society, it is the individual's responsibility and duty to either support their society's goals, work to change that society's goals, or to leave that society. However, even warfare has rules that must be followed. Combatants can only kill rival combatants--non-combatants are verboten. Combatants must follow the "rules of engagement" prescribed by their vying societies (for instance, the nations that are signatories of the Geneva Convention must follow its guidelines when at war with other signatories of that treaty). In cases where there is no set rules, the rule of thumb is that one society will not do anything that they are not prepared to have done to them (for example, Japanese death camps throughout the Pacific and on the Asian mainland during WWII contributed to the decision to use nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Killing in warfare becomes murder when the individual violates the rules of engagement (whether those rules are written or unwritten). It matters not whether the individual "crosses the line" on their own or "under orders". A prime example are those who stood trial at Nurenburg following WWII. Granted, it becomes a much finer line between black and white, but even during times of war, A is A. "Murder on a larger scale" in a warfare context would be when combatants commit the wholesale slaughter of non-combatants. A prime example of this would be the attempted extermination of the Jews during WWII. Hope that makes some kind of sense.

Mermaid	27 May 2002
OK, I get what you're saying now I think. So you'd say that solidiers killing soldiers is just war, but soldiers killing non-combatants is murder?

Umbrae	27 May 2002
Murders in the Amazon jungle? Fact: right now in the jungles of (I believe) Ecuador there is a man who the local police cannot get to because it too deep in the jungle. A local tribe has found the man guilty of murder. His is due to be burned alive (it may have already happened). Society throughout the ages has found that there are rules by which all people must adhere to, lest the society break down. Failure to adhere to these rules is punishable. Throughout all time, murder is punishable. Perhaps we as enlightened individuals should ask the families of the victims what we should do with the guilty? Perhaps slavery should be legal under these circumstances?

slinky_jo	27 May 2002
What I want is for the life sentencing here in NZ to actually mean LIFE. Too often "life" is 13 years or so. I know in the States they tack on time if you commit multiple crimes - here they tack on another year or two, it's disgusting. Too many people re-offend. If you commit a horrible crime, you should pay for it - maybe not with your life, but there should be some kind of reasonable punishment. Also too many people plea "insanity:" - well DUH, of course you are insane if you rape then strangle someone...

wavebreaker	28 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae Society throughout the ages has found that there are rules by which all people must adhere to, lest the society break down. Failure to adhere to these rules is punishable. Throughout all time, murder is punishable. I don't think anybody here is saying that murderers should not be punished. I definitely didn't. The question is what kind of punishment: death or imprisonment (or maybe some other punishment). I'd say life imprisonment (where life really is life, with no chance of getting released early). For the murderer, the death penalty is really the easy way out: when he's dead, it's all over. Spending the rest of his life in prison being reminded of what he did every day of his life is much more of a punishment. And I'd add hard labour to that, doing something useful for society, so he can earn back every cent he's costing society.

Kiama	28 May 2002
The thing I am worried about here is members of the forum fearing backlash on their post. I did not generate this thread to cause any arguments and all-out bashing. I created it so I could find out about others' viewpoints on this issue, and hear about other arguments and why they belive what they do: Its my way of learning about something. Please don't just leave the thread 'just in case' somebody may disagree with you... Kiama

Diana	28 May 2002
Kiama, in the animal-testing thread (I think it was that one), I remember saying that thre are a few subjects which will always cause bad friction, even amongst good friends, and that the death-penalty is one of them. Anther one is abortion, gun control and, strangely, I have noticed, nuclear energy. When emotions and rationality get caught up, things can often go hay-wire. (Oh, genetically modifed food can also to some extent cause trouble amongst people.)

Malachite	28 May 2002
No one has said that murder should not be punished. The question is how... Is it right to take away someone's life in order to punish them for taking away someone else's?...Personally, I feel not. Lock them up. If the rehabilitate, release them. As long as it takes. If you don't like paying the extra money, then pay government ministers less money. I'm sure Mr Blair could survive on less than £800,000 p.a . But I also feel that to take away the causes would produce a longer term effect than simply cleaning up the mess afterwards.. And Yarnie...Making society better is not the same as making it perfect. I never mentioned Utopia, you created that little argument yourself, there. Of course there will always be oddballs. Nothing anyone can do about that. Even genetic manipulation wouldn't stop fresh mutations coming up every now and then. But I really don't think that that is any reason not to try. Society now is ok, but we can always try to make it better. After all, why did not stop at balloon flight, and instead invent aeroplanes?...Because they do it better. No one looked at the plans, and said, no, hang on, thats not perfect, so lets not bother trying. It is the right, priviledge and responsibility of all people to make the world as good a place for everyone. To argue against that is to argue against hope, liberty and innocence. As for Socialism?. I'd rather live in a society which will take my money and pay my hospital fees, than in one which will take my money, and make me pay my own hospital fees. I'd really love to have seen the rest of your argument, cos I damn well know I could have argued it down. And war?.. War is killing. Killing is death, Murder is death. Show me the difference. Explain the difference to a woman in Sierra Leone, or Colombia, who's husband and sons died in a war that has lasted twenty years. War is the worst crime, but almost never are people punished for it. Actually, I take that back, War is the second-worst crime. The worst crime is giving up hope.

Yarnie	28 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Mermaid OK, I get what you're saying now I think. So you'd say that solidiers killing soldiers is just war, but soldiers killing non-combatants is murder? Yes, exactly! Soldiers know what may happen and they accept that possibility as a potential outcome of their service to their society. Non-combatants do not fall into that category and the intentional killing of them is murder. "Intentional" is a very operative word in that statement. Unintentional killing of non-combatants would, at absolute worst, be manslaughter and not be punishable as murder. This definitely gets into legal definitions!

Yarnie	28 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Malachite ... As for Socialism?. I'd rather live in a society which will take my money and pay my hospital fees, than in one which will take my money, and make me pay my own hospital fees. I'd really love to have seen the rest of your argument, cos I damn well know I could have argued it down. To your satisfaction, perhaps, but not to the satisfaction of logic. Any argument for socialism takes as one of its premises that the government has a right to out and out steal from its citizens. Whether the "proceeds" of that theft is to enrich the government or for some program that is a short-term benefit to the citizenry does not change the fact that the government stands in the role of the highwayman taking what you have earned by your own sweat and toil with the barrel of a gun. You get your hospital fees paid by the highwayman? Great! You're a victim of extortion. You want to be taken care of? No problem. The cradle-to-grave shackles of socialism will take care of you...but the price is economic slavery to the highwayman. The problem with the viewpoint you have stated above is that the highwayman does not take just your money. You may be quite willing to bow your head to economic slavery to the highwayman in exchange for some form of security. But your master is not satisfied with your individual enslavement--he must have the economic enslavement of your entire society in order to make that security work and while you may be more than willing to suck at the welfare teat, others are not and are made the unwilling slaves to the highwayman. It boils down to this: Why should any individual be robbed of the toil of their labors? Why should any individual be robbed of the opportunity to voluntarily help those less fortunate? Upon what moral and ethical basis would you argue that it is right to "take from the rich and give to the poor"? (After all, many of the "rich" became so through their own toil and risk.) How is it that you can advocate the economic slavery of socialism and champion "liberty"? Very interesting, indeed! (Note: I'd really love to see your answers here, because anything you say will unerringly fall into the chasm of situational ethics!) Quote: And war?.. War is killing. True. Quote: Killing is death, True. Quote: Murder is death. Show me the difference. I illustrated the difference in a previous post. If you want to hold the "Killing is death. Murder is death. There is no difference." statement as an axiom (something you seem to be doing in your post--correct me if I am wrong), you will soon find that you have put yourself into an indefensible position. For instance, let's say that you are driving a motorcar down the highway and an old woman who is walking along the verge falls down into your path. You cannot stop in time and the collision kills her. By your statement, you have committed murder. Since you are not a proponent of the death penalty, you won't have to die for committing this murder--you'll only have to serve 13-15 years (in the UK) before you can get out on good behavior. "But it was an accident!" you yell. Hmmm...let's see, "killing is death, murder is death, there is no difference." Nope, nothing in there about accidents (or war, or justifiable homicide, or manslaughter, or negligent homicide....). Sorry, see you in 15 years, provided you behave yourself! See? Your statement holds water about as well as a screen door will seal up a submarine. Oh really? I suppose the British Empire and the United States should have taken the "moral high road" in 1938-1945 and not gone to war with the Third Reich because "war is the worst crime" (oh, sorry, "second-worst")? Or is it that THAT war was punishment of the Third Reich for making war? Perhaps the Third Reich could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by not going to war with other countries and just committing the lesser crime of genocide (after all, there's no room at the head of the list since "war" and "giving up hope" take the top two slots). And if "war" is higher on the list than mass murder and slavery, I guess we should have let Hitler do his will, then. There are worse things that can be conceptualized and committed by the human mind than war...some of them even so bad as to be punishable by death. Please think about your statement and decide if you really want to stand by it. Quote: The worst crime is giving up hope. I assume that this is somehow aimed at my attitude regarding the impossibility of a Utopia. Ok, I can deal with that. You seem to be insinuating that I have committed "the worst crime" of "giving up hope." You couldn't be farther from the truth. I have hope. I have hope that we, as both a society and as individuals, will make the best of whatever our situation may be. The big difference (as I see it) is that I refuse to wear rose-colored glasses. I look at things the way they are and don't disillusion myself that everyone will "play nice." A is A and its time that more people get their heads out of the clouds and look at what is--because "what is" is. Reality is a hard pill for some to swallow, but that is what we all have to work with, not some ideal that would be nice but is unrealistic at this time. I know that sounds like I am opposed to dreaming of a greater future, but that is not the case either. Dreaming of a greater future, making plans for the betterment of everyone, having ideals is an integral part of our individual and societal being and to give those things up would mean a slow and painful death through apathy. But while those things are important (even vital), they have little to do with the here and now which we must deal with on a daily basis. You asked for my opinions. There they are--have at it! I doubt that you will change my mind, but I'm still interested in hearing your responses.

Geenius at Wrok	28 May 2002
In civilized society, we allow killing in self-defense, but we don't allow killing in revenge—e.g., you killed my brother, so I kill you. Oddly, however, many of our sentencing laws seem to be motivated primarily by a desire to take revenge on the perpetrator. If we posit that what's good for the individual is good for the state, then the state should only be allowed to sentence criminals in its own defense. In other words, punishment is not an acceptable motive in sentencing; the only acceptable motive is the prevention of crime. This means that a sentence must serve two and only two purposes: - Prevent the perpetrator from committing his crime again. - Deter others from committing the same crime. Any sentence that falls short of these goals is ineffectual. Any sentence that exceeds these goals is morally indefensible. I believe that our entire criminal justice system needs an overhaul. Specifically, imprisonment is not an effective sentence. Perhaps once, when it meant isolating someone from society, it was. But today, it's merely taking someone out of the larger society and plunging him into another society whose values are quite opposite to the larger society's. A person sentenced to 10 years in prison spends those 10 years steeped in street values, absorbing the message that might makes right (whether you're a guard or a gangster) and learning the tricks of the trade from other convicts. This is supposed to rehabilitate him, to make him a better, more functional member of society? Hardly. I am a big fan of fines, creative alternative sentencing (sadly precluded by overly cautious interpretation of the constitutional clause forbidding "unusual" punishment), therapeutic treatment . . . and, for people who will commit crimes again regardless of what it costs them, the death penalty. Yes, I believe that capital punishment is a necessary element of the perfect justice system. Our current justice system is not perfect, not even close to it, and there's no way we can administer the death penalty fairly—we convict too many innocent people, free too many guilty ones and are far from evenhanded in how we sentence those we convict. The concept of execution itself, though, should not give us qualms. We tolerate killing during wartime. We tolerate euthanasia of animals, and many people (including me) believe we should extend the same courtesy to humans. We tolerate killing in self-defense. A majority of us, albeit a narrow one, tolerate abortion, which is sometimes self-defense and sometimes mercy killing but sometimes just a matter of convenience. So the idea of killing someone to protect society from his future crimes is hardly horrifying.

Yarnie	28 May 2002
(chuckles) Sorry, Genius....I find nothing in your post with which to disagree. We may not see completely eye-to-eye on euthanasia, but the difference is so slight that no one could call it disagreement. Good post!

Cocobird55	29 May 2002
Thinking about this makes me a little sad. I used to be unequivocally against the death penalty. Then Charles Manson and his friends went on a murdering spree and wound up living close to where I was living at the time. Even from prison, Manson still tried to influence people to believe in his evil cause, and some did. I think the world would be a better place without him. And I guess that's how I feel about the death penalty. Life in prison is enough for most crimes, but when someone does something despicable, and influences other people to follow his lead, I think the world would be a better place if that person left it. Since Manson, there have been lots of other mass murderers and crazy people. After 9/11 I honestly have to say that if someone took out Osama bin Laden I would not cry. Would the world have been better off without Hitler? I think so... Sue (who is usually a very peaceful person)

catlin	29 May 2002
Ok, this is a hard one but I'l answer it: due to the recent increase in murder I'd also would vote for death penalty but I would not accept having murders who are sentenced to death have them stay for 10 and more years in prison and always await their execution because this is double punishment. Ok, there might be cases of innocent doomed to execution but frankly speaking: remember the families who have lost someone by murder. They "pay" for a whole life as they always remember this. No-one has asked what they suffered and still suffer. B/W there were several attempts to kill Hitler but strangely enough, they all failed.

Diana	29 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by catlin B/W there were several attempts to kill Hitler but strangely enough, they all failed. Catlin: if he had been killed, we might all be living in Nazi Europe today. He made so many strategic mistakes. If he had died, it is highly likely that someone who knew about military strategy would have taken over and then we would have been in deep, deep trouble - much deeper than we were even in those days.

Geenius at Wrok	29 May 2002
Considering that Hitler's designated successor was Adm. Karl Dönitz, you're probably right.

Kiama	29 May 2002
Call me politically uneducated, but what's Socialism, and what's its opposition? Kiama

Yarnie	29 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama Call me politically uneducated, but what's Socialism, and what's its opposition? Kiama Kiama, I got this definition from the political dictionary at www.fast-times.com/political/political.html : "Socialism - a political system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are mostly owned by the state, and used, at least in theory, on behalf of the people. The idea behind socialism is that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair, because it concentrates wealth in a few hands and does nothing to safeguard the overall welfare of the majority. Under socialism, the state redistributes the wealth of society in a more equitable way, with the ideal of social justice replacing the profit motive. Socialism as a system is anathema to most Americans, although many social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid (once derided by their opponents as "socialized medicine") and Social Security are socialistic in effect, since they are controlled by the government and effect a measure of income redistribution that could not happen if market forces were the sole factor in the economic life of society. See also communism; Leninism; Marxism." Socialism's opposite is Capitalism (same source): "Capitalism - an economic system in which the means of production, such as land and factories, are privately owned and operated for profit. Usually ownership is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people. Capitalism, which developed during the Industrial Revolution, is associated with free enterprise, although in practice even capitalist societies have government regulations for business, to prevent monopolies and to cushion domestic industries from foreign competition. Opponents of capitalism say that the economy should be organized to serve the public good, not private profit. Supporters say capitalism creates wealth, which creates jobs, which create prosperity for everyone." Be sure to bookmark that URL as it is a valuable resource (although about 3 years out of date on some definitions--such as terrorism) when reading the news or having discussions of this sort.

Geenius at Wrok	29 May 2002
Per el Diccionario Sabio: socialism n 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society and group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done To this definition I would add . . . 4 : a term used by conservative yahoos to discredit the use of taxation to improve the lives of people who otherwise would be starving penniless in a vacant lot on their pitifully stingy free-market wages The opposite of which would be laissez-faire capitalism, in which the government lets the wise and beneficent corporate class do its thing without interference or oversight, which will lead to a shining future of universal, unlimited happiness and prosperity which won't look the least bit like Brazil.

jema	29 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by catlin Ok, there might be cases of innocent doomed to execution but frankly speaking: remember the families who have lost someone by murder. They "pay" for a whole life as they always remember this. No-one has asked what they suffered and still suffer. i think perhaps one should remember that the sometimes innocent prisoners have families too. there are victimes on both sides only for the families to a "killer" (even if innocent) it is so much harder to be able to grief. we had a case in sweden this spring, of a man who sat in prison 8 years and was refused a new trial until the media began to look into it. finally "new evidence" was found, a new trial took place and the man is now free. his children had no father for 8 years. still, they were lucky, they could have lived in texas. (irony - i know i might not have all information but the press in sweden does pain texas in particular black colour when it comes to capital punishment)

Geenius at Wrok	29 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Yarnie Be sure to bookmark that URL as it is a valuable resource (although about 3 years out of date on some definitions--such as terrorism) when reading the news or having discussions of this sort. Don't bother. Despite claiming to have "no political, ideological, or religious affiliation of any kind," its definitions are laughably biased; every definition of a term referring to the political left contains some sort of slag phrase, e.g., "Socialism as a system is anathema to most Americans," "The Democratic party has some left-wing adherents, but it tries to minimize their influence when election time comes round, since in the U.S., left-wing policies are generally vote-losers," and "The label of liberal is something that many politicans now seek to avoid, since it is out of keeping with the public mood"; while definitions of terms referring to the political right contain no such phrases. Avoid.

Malachite	29 May 2002
So...the argument is drawn... Some people believe that Socialism is 'theft'. I do not. The argument has been raised that a socialist government 'steals' from its citizens. This is no doubt a reference to the generally high level of taxation levied to pay for the social projects funded by state intervention or control. In socialist theory, although it must be admitted that this can be usurped in practice, a free and fair election will result in the production of a democratic legislative body that represents the wishes of the people. If a socialist party wins this election, it must logically be assumed that the majority of voters support the introduction of socialist policy, both in public spending and public taxation, as well as corporate taxation. The high-tax approach of socialist governments is well known, even in countries where no socialist would stand a snowflake's chance in hell of being elected. It would be unfair, therefore, to call into question the knowledgeability of a voting bloc about what a socialist party would stand for. Any party elected, according to democratic principles, therefore has its mandate as the section of the people that the majority of the public choose to represent their interests to the rest of the country. Such a legislative body therefore constitutes a microcosm of the population. Although demographically, they are invariably old, white and male, at least in western countries, this is a cultural fault, not a political one, and does not necessarily affect the political stance of those elected. Both the democratic tradition, and the socialist tradition which constitutes a facet of democracy, enshrine this microcosm as the contract between people and government. That there is no difference between goverment, and people, that one is the legislative body of the greater, chosen by wide franchise, to enact policy on its behalf. To separate the 'government' from the 'people', is to undermine the concept of liberty, and the right to self determination valued so highly by Lincoln (of the people, by the people, and for the people), and more recently, FDR. Therefore, any government, even a socialist one, has been given its mandate by the majority who elected it, or in the case of the US presidency, the minority who elected it. This mandate, provided it is not exceeded, allows the goverment to levy taxes according to the policy set out in their manifesto. A departure from suggested policy is likely to get them removed from office by public decision upon the next election. In legal terms, socialist taxes are therefore more in the realm of a 'gift', 'donation', or 'loan', than a 'theft'. A public vote in favour of a socialist government is an acceptance of high taxation as an appendage of the mandate that they wish to grant that party. No person or body can steal something which they have already been given. And, literally, legalized theft, is, of course, no longer theft, in the same way as legalised use of cannabis is no longer drug abuse, or, as some would have it, killing legalised is no longer murder. However, I assume the use of 'theft' was merely an emotive and possessive reference to the high taxation levels. Obviously, a socialist government must raise funds to instate the social reforms and projects that it has been democratically mandated to do. Since the benefit of these projects goes to the people, a logical financial step is to raise money from the people. This is commonly viewed as fact, despite the footnote that taxation of corporate bodies also provides a great deal of funding towards public schemes. The high levels of taxation may inspire fear in a country unaccustomed to socialist government, and concepts such as enforced 'national insurance' seem harsh, uncompromising and foreign. However, when looked at economically, the difference between capitalist and socialist economies barely differs. In the capitalist economy, exemplified by the good ole' US of A, a person must spend approximately 10.2% of their annual income on private health insurance. (based on GDP per capita data from the CIA World Fact-Book, and a study of the average cost of the most popular insurance schemes in the state of Massachusetts, for a single person.) For a family, assuming two wage earners on equal pay, this rises to almost 11%. This does not take account of the 80/20 rule applied by most insurers, where the insurer only pays for eighty percent of charges made for hospital treatment or prescription. This means that the more accurate figure would be nearer to 12.75% for a single person, or nearly 14% for a family. However, for a middle income family under the rules of National Insurance, 9.6% of a family's income pays for unlimited hospital treatment, most basic prescriptions, and other treatment where available. ( based on my dad's regular paycheques.) As it happens, due to mismanagement, the UK's NHS is not a prime performer at present, but in France, where taxation is closer to 7%, waiting times and sucess rate are significantly better than in the US. Par examplé, a friend of my mother's, who required an ovarian operation as a precaution, ie., not in emergency circumstances, but to prevent the occurence of emergency circumstances, had been released from hospital within a week of her initial routine doctor's appointment. Futhermore, a private healthcare scheme is liable to collapse, raised premiums, and profiteering for the board of directors. In addition, competition between insurance providers, generally defined as 'healthy competion', will inevitably lead to price cuts, which sounds fine, until you wonder where the savings come from. Something tells me that those directors didn't vote themselves a pay cut last year. A state controlled scheme, on the other hand, is better insulated against the economic climate by the availability of funds from other founts of taxation. In a private enterprise, a sudden loss of job will result in termination of health insurance after a further eighteen months. In a state scheme, you are supported for life. "...the fact that the government stands in the role of the highwayman taking what you have earned ...,with the barrel of a gun." ( I inserted the comma there, since I assume that the intention was not to defend highway robbery as a legitimate form of income.) If anyone chooses to view the tax collector as a 'highwayman', then so be it. No one likes paying money, especially after a hard day's graft to get it. However, the government is not only the so-called 'highwayman', but also the 'sherriff', whose laws and regulations are provided by public mandate to protect tax-payer's interests in the matter. So how does a capitalism compare to this? In a capitalism, every private heathcare, educational and social interest is a highwayman. They compete to take your money, that you earned. If you don't pay, then you suffer the consequences of rack and ruin from illness and injury. These bodies are not responsible to the people, in any other function than keeping their books above board with the IRS. The Capitalist government may claim to be the 'sherriff' to all these 'highwaymen', but if so, it can hardly claim to be doing a damn fine job of it, when 2.1 million adults are without the benefits of a health insurance scheme. And, linked to this.. "(After all, many of the "rich" became so through their own toil and risk.)" I would like to be a professional Archaologist. Its not exactly a toiling risk, but it involves three years of university, and another three for MA, and then a hard slog up the promotion ladder to reach a position with a useful rate of pay. On the other hand, I could trot down to an airline company, and get a job that'll pay for two houses, including a foreign holiday home, three children, and the carers to pay for them while I'm away. All for pushing a trolley down a corridor at thirty thousand feet. Surprisingly enough, 'wealth' is not related to 'effort'. On average, in most production/labour based services, such as drinks and comestibles, communications and light industry, which comprise the bulk of the Western economies, each productive worker is effectively carrying the financial equivalent of at least one, if not two unproductive workers. This is due to high-paid shareholders, a wide-ranging and often useless board of directors, and a management scheme that encourages the distribution of positions euphemistically titled 'Special Projects', which provide their holder with a manager's salary for doing practically nothing but make tea for the entirety of the working day. The people you seem to be describing, the hard-working labourers, are the ones who produce the resources that are sold on to 'generate wealth.' Often, these people cannot afford high levels of private fee, due to the profiteering of both their employer, and their insurer. Therefore, they are likely to suffer from inevitable degradation in their working efficiency, and their value to the economy. Without them, production slows, and 'wealth cannot be generated'. The state controlled insurer is limited in scope by progressive taxation, which means that the poorer can afford state insurance. While this results in higher taxation for the rich, it couples this with a more stable generation of wealth, and therefore, in the long term, a fair deal for the wealthy, who can reap the profits of their employee's work, while paying a greater personal share of the tax burden on behalf of their employees. That this is economic fact is shown by the adoption of the half-hearted Medicaid and Medicare programmes by the US government, to ensure that a supply of labour is not restricted by poverty and associated illness.

Malachite	29 May 2002
"But your master is not satisfied with your individual enslavement--he must have the economic enslavement of your entire society" Who exactly is my master? If this refers to the goverment elected by the majority of voters, then I think the term 'Representative' might be more appropriate. So. Piece by piece. I have no 'master' save those to whom I delegate my voice in society. The same is true of all people in a democratic society large enough to require impersonal representation, including capitalist countries. Except the capitalist countries where corruption is rife, voting is fixed, and politicians run off with the money. Lots of that happens in capitalist states. I see that now, it is the highwayman who provides my keep, as well as taking my money? In addition to which, I represent a small, but constituent block of the highwayman himself. Ah, I understand now. But that, then, is a false premise, because I am not dependent on the state for my income. I can still work to provide myself with whatever degree of income I deserve for my degree of toil. For any society to function, a common rule must apply to all its inhabitants. This took named shape through the work of Rousseau, in his 'Social Contract'. And that, rather than slavery, is how I see my relationship with my government. It is a contract between all people, to create a functioning society. It is the process of liberty that created the demand that 'if I pay, he pays', and thus is explained the enshrining of socialist taxation (now shown to be less excessive than claimed.). But why should the rich pay more? Surely, on a progressive taxation rule, they lose out? This is not so. Social expenditure is not progressive. Owning a TV will cost you the same, whether you are rich are poor. Wealth is not one of the factors taken account of in the pricing of food. No one forces the wealthy to buy more expensive houses and cars. This means that, while a rich and poor family may earn widely different amounts, the ratio of income to expenditure works in favour of the wealthy. The wealthy simply have more surplus cash to play with. An increase in taxation on income for National Insurance may be progressive, but so is the interest that this surplus wealth generates in savings. Also, of course, wealth and poverty are interchangeable states. One can be wealth one week, and poor the next, but the taxation of your income changes to represent this. This system works in favour of those who need it, while hardly denting the financial prowess of those who do not. On the other hand, in a capitalist system, the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer, these poor then becoming a drag on the economy, reducing the wealth of the rich, who inevitable invest abroad, creating devaluation of the currency, and subsequent economic repercussions (see Depression, Great (1930s). For a system which claims to allow wealth to 'trickle' down the social ladder, this seems to rub against the grain. Strangely enough, a socialist state is less 'enslaved' than a capitalist one. As a society in which mandate and liberty are defined in law, and in which a few choice duties to all are enclosed, economic liberties are then left free, no longer a threat to the necessary homogenity of society. In a capitalist society, it is the economic freedoms which are enshrined in law, while the safeguards necessary to ensure the recycling of wealth are left in the public domain, optional to all, but free to wither and die in the greed of human economy. "Upon what moral and ethical basis would you argue that it is right to "take from the rich and give to the poor?" I would argue this on the moral and ethical basis that it counteracts the natural self-preserving and essentially greedy instinct in humanity. As a moral being, I know that there are others in my society, with whom I share a symbiotic relationship. My expense becomes their wealth, and vice versa. I therefore see it as fair that some safeguards are put in place over exactly how the transfer of wealth occurs. I, and everyone else in my country over the age of eighteen, exlcuding lunatics and reigning monarchs, can choose what manner of party oversees this transfer, safe in the knowledge that if the job is not done satisfactorily, they can be deselected, and an alternative chosen. It is not a given than anyone will choose to give charity to any other, but it is a necessary of life that some transfer must occur. Therefore, I see a legal enshrining of this transfer to be a fair and just way to resolve the situation. It is more ethical to put the controversial aspects of this transfer into written law and precedent, where they can be viewed, amended and altered, than to leave them unwritten and unenforced, and reliant upon the negligent charity of the human race. After all, I cannot live a dream world where everyone will happily hand over their earnings to the scruffy pauper in the street. I must reside in the here and now, as that is, of course, where I am.

AutumnMoonfire	29 May 2002
In a case with solid evidence, a true peer jury and capeable defence councel I could perhaps see a death penalty as just. Too many people sitting on death row have lacked one or all three of these. As implemented in the US, capital cases(those eligible for the death penalty) are more expensive to try and then defend, then it would be to keep the perp in prison for life. There has to be an automatic appeals process or you will kill innocent people. Prison life sucks. they may have 3 hots and a cot, but they have to live with hardships and rules that would astound you. It is punishment and it isn't a place people want to go. Where I live we are well supplied with prisons. We are also well supplied with corrections officers(guards), the vast majority of whom are white. These are, with some happy exceptions, some of the most racist biggoted a-holes I have ever had the displeasure to know. I cannot imagine being a person of color in prison and at the mercy of these guys' whims. no-siree prison is not a nice place to be. I have met and cared for inmates in the hospital. They regard hospitalization as vacay but I did not discuss conditions and life with them. I am opposed to the death penalty at this time...

Yarnie	30 May 2002
...when it comes down to long-windedness. Yes, you threw out a lot of statistics on the table, but statistics are easily manipulated by those who wish to do so. Where ideas come into play, though, that is another story. You may claim the moral high ground from your point of view, but whether you really stand there (from an objective point of view) or not is quite debatable. You and I will have to agree to disagree because we will never see eye-to-eye on certain premises: 1. Private property rights--I believe these to be a basic building block of liberty. You believe that is is an outdated idea that must give way to Marxism. 2. Individual responsibility--I believe that it is each individual's responsibility to care for themselves and their families. If that means they must be a flight attendant rather than an archealogist, so be it. You believe that the responsibility for caring for everyone belongs to the state. 3. Self determination--I believe that those with the drive, ambition, and courage to build their own wealth should be allowed to do so and not be punished through confiscatory taxation by the state at the behest of those who are not as willing to do the same work for themselves. You believe that it is the people's prerogative (through the state) to steal what the ambitious have built and earned just because there are fewer people with the courage to make their own way than there are people willing to loot the producers...and on top of that, you actually think it is right which is something that boggles my mind. 4. Limited Government--I believe government should be limited to what it is specifically charged to do (read the Constitution of the United States and you will see just how limited the scope of our government is supposed to be compared to what Constitutional rapists like Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ have made it). You believe that government should be the "parent" of every one of a country's inhabitants. As a function of the "idealogy" of socialism, the "people" have been taught that they can vote themselves money and/or benefits by adopting a socialist system. This is not government--it is mob rule with its own mafia holding the reigns (you know who I mean--those who hold the power at the corrupt top!). I'll close this discussion (which, I'll point out has veered greatly from the original topic...at your request, I'll add!) by posing one last rhetorical question to you: What would you, the prolitariat, do if the Producers (those with the drive, ambition, and 'guts' to build a productive enterprise) decided to tear down their factories and businesses and just left...just disappeared into thin air...and left you all to fend for yourselves? A is A You can't escape that fact.

fairyhedgehog	30 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Geenius at Wrok I agreed with your entire post. Wow! That doesn't often happen. FH

Yarnie	30 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Geenius at Wrok Don't bother. Despite claiming to have "no political, ideological, or religious affiliation of any kind," its definitions are laughably biased; every definition of a term referring to the political left contains some sort of slag phrase, e.g., "Socialism as a system is anathema to most Americans," "The Democratic party has some left-wing adherents, but it tries to minimize their influence when election time comes round, since in the U.S., left-wing policies are generally vote-losers," and "The label of liberal is something that many politicans now seek to avoid, since it is out of keeping with the public mood"; while definitions of terms referring to the political right contain no such phrases. Avoid. Aaaah, as usual, a left-leaning liberal bias is perfectly fine, but a conservative point of view is something to be totally dismissed. So much for tolerance! BTW, the quotes you pulled out for you post are all correct in the basic truth of their statements: Socialism is anathema to most Americans--as Malachite's arguments for socialism illustrate, if socialism wasn't anathema to most Americans, it would be the system we use here. Left-wing adherents are vote-losers at election time in the US and many politicians sympathetic to socialist views do seek to avoid the liberal label--If that was not the case, why do Bill Clinton and Tom Daschele and Dick Gephardt constantly try to portray themselves as centrists rather than the socialists they really are? If one looks at the "generally accepted" sources, one would get the impression that Conservatives are a small, radical, fringe group rather than approximately 50% of our society. Members of the media generally are liberal and are quite transparent in their bias. Why then should ONE source which may or may not have a Conservative basis be dismissed out of hand when the majority of the sources have a Liberal bias? Just because it is the majority opinion does not necessarily make it correct or right. A is A. The majority can be wrong and it is still wrong. Dismissing ANY point of view just because you do not like it or agree with it is very closed-minded. (Malachite, before you attempt to "capitalize" ;) on my last statement, I don't dismiss socialism--it just does not make moral, ethical, or logical sense to me given my views on liberty and the rights of the individual.)

Geenius at Wrok	30 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Yarnie 1. Private property rights--I believe these to be a basic building block of liberty. You believe that is is an outdated idea that must give way to Marxism. Malachite neither mentioned nor described Marxism in his post. This is yet another case of conservative bashing of social democracy by tarring it with the loaded words "socialism" and "Marxism." It's a fallacy, known in rhetorical circles as "poisoning the well." What it is not is a legitimate argument. I am also not convinced that private property rights are of such overwhelming importance that they ought to trump freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition for redress of grievances, freedom from unwarranted search and freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process of law, all of which are routinely violated in the name of "company interest." "Noble people set their hearts on virtue; petty people set their hearts on property." —Confucius Quote: 2. Individual responsibility--I believe that it is each individual's responsibility to care for themselves and their families. The corporate structure is specifically about the avoidance of individual responsibility through diffusion of risk among shareholders and boards of directors. (Before the corporation, which incidentally was created to execute risky public works projects and was never intended to take on an economic life of its own, there were only sole proprietorships and limited partnerships.) A corporation can get away with all manner of gross negligence and malfeasance, and the worst that will happen is that its directors and executives will have to find other jobs. Nothing will ever happen to the shareholders who profit from it. And as long as the only responsibility a corporation has is to its bottom line, it will engage in negligence and malfeasance, because negligence and malfeasance are profitable. Quote: 3. Self determination--I believe that those with the drive, ambition, and courage to build their own wealth should be allowed to do so and not be punished through confiscatory taxation by the state at the behest of those who are not as willing to do the same work for themselves. But if you're like most conservatives, you do not believe that employees should display their drive, ambition and courage in the form of unionization, the only thing that can put them on anything even close to equal footing with corporations. Quote: 4. Limited Government--I believe government should be limited to what it is specifically charged to do . . . Except for the bit about "promoting the general welfare," which, if you'll notice, is right there at the beginning. Laissez-faire capitalism (which I am careful to distinguish from well-regulated capitalism within a social democracy) is destructive to the general welfare; it serves nothing but the profit interests of corporate executives and shareholders. Quote: What would you, the prolitariat, do if the Producers (those with the drive, ambition, and 'guts' to build a productive enterprise) decided to tear down their factories and businesses and just left...just disappeared into thin air...and left you all to fend for yourselves? The same thing people have done in market-square societies throughout the ages: fend for themselves, with their own resources (which they themselves will own) and on their own terms. And I think you might hear a few mutters of "good riddance" here and there as well. Quote: Aaaah, as usual, a left-leaning liberal bias is perfectly fine, but a conservative point of view is something to be totally dismissed. I'm upfront about my own bias. On the other hand. a conservative point of view that pretends to be neutral and unbiased is indeed something to be totally dismissed, because it can't be trusted. Quote: A is A. The purest example of a tautology, a.k.a. circular reasoning—another logical fallacy, and thanks to Ayn Rand, one of the world's most popular.

Yarnie	30 May 2002
Geenius, You seem to have a stick in your craw regarding corporations. I do not think you will see anything in my post defending corporations. Everything I have stated is related to the individual. Socialism and Marxism are so intertwined that the two are indistinguishable. Socialism is a progression of Marxism. Not the other way around. IF I had been "waving the red flag" I would have referred to Malachite as a communist--something I most certainly did NOT do. "Noble people understand that respect of another's property is a virtue." (Yarnspinner) Platitudes such as the one you quoted from Confucius are often quoted by people attempting to claim a higher intellectual/moral position that is indefensible through logic. Unions have their place at certain times and in certain circumstances and it is quite admirable for the workers of a particular company or industry to unionize in order to bring about reforms to correct issues such as child labor, unsafe/unhealthy working environment, and generally unsafe working conditions. Unfortunately, most large unions in existence in the United States today have outlived their proper function and serve only to protect mediocrity and laziness in the workplace. A prime example is the teacher who cannot teach but is protected by his union and is therefore allowed to continue to lower the standards of education in this country. Promoting the General Welfare.... Well, I guess that all depends on your definition of the "general welfare". If you look back at the related writings of the Founding Fathers, you won't see anything in there about the government's role being to parent the citizenry. On the contrary, the role of government is to foster an environment where the individual is afforded the opportunity to better himself. You will not find any kind of support from the authors of the Founding Documents for socialism. It simply goes against the grain of the ideals upon which this country was established. (I suspect that you and I will be in disagreement on this as well. Fine. We'll have to agree to disagree.) BTW...who do you think are those evil shareholders of whom you speak? Hmmm? They ARE the general population--the prolitariat, if you will. They are you and they are me. If you have any kind of retirement plan, I can 95% guarantee you that your pension (or 401K or whatever you have) is made up at least in part by stocks and bonds from those evil corporations you hate so much. So, unless you have all of your money buried in the back yard, you are, by association, as guilty as anyone else you care to name. Quote: The same thing people have done in market-square societies throughout the ages: fend for themselves, with their own resources (which they themselves will own) and on their own terms. And I think you might hear a few mutters of "good riddance" here and there as well. Well, how about doing things in reverse of what my question posed? There are plenty of countries around the world with economies structured the way you claim to prefer. There are plenty of countries around the world with socialist systems in place. Why is it that you, the "downtrodden", don't go to one of them if things are so bad here for you? By your own arguments, if you all left, the corporations and the capitalists would not be able to function, so why don't you go where things fit your philosophy better? Personally, I know that I'm of the opinion that it would serve the pro-socialism crowd of this country right if they were left to fend for themselves because then they would immediately have to become capitalists...at least some of them. Why? Because if all the Producers (Capitalists) left, they would have no one else to rob. Lincoln is hailed as one of this country's greatest presidents because his is rhapsodized as having ended slavery in this country. But the true Lincoln can be seen in several of his campaign speeches in 1860 regarding Southern secession: Of course we will not let them go, for if the South were allowed to leave the Union, from where would we get our revenue? (Paraphrased since I don't have the source document in front of me here.) You wish to dismiss any source that you, who admit openly that you are liberally biased, see as being conservative that claims to be neutral and unbiased. The fact is that anything that is to the right of your own opinion, including the position of neutral and unbiased, would be considered conservative from your vantage point and, therefore, suitable for dismissal by your own statement. Therefore your own statement is self-serving and cannot be trusted. Mathematics, my friend! Mathematics--logic in one of its purest forms. Please illustrate how "A is A" is an example of circular reasoning. You made the statement, now prove it if you can. You cannot get away with making a broad-brush statement regarding a philosophical stance and not be expected to prove your statement. Just remember that in the context of my previous post, you will have to prove that Right = Wrong and Wrong = Right in order to disprove that Right = Right and Wrong = Wrong. A is still A--the individual is still the individual (rather than the group politic)--and it will be interesting to watch you attempt to prove differently.

Geenius at Wrok	30 May 2002
"Attempt"? I have the Aberdeen Proving Ground behind me, and I haven't even finished off my first case of shells. Unfortunately, to my vexation, I just hit a wrong key and deleted about 45 minutes' worth of writing. It's not worth writing out twice. Pretend you've won.

Rain	31 May 2002
I am not lashing, nor am I putting down anyones opinion, I am simply stating my own. If you purchase a toaster, and it does not work properly, you return it. However, humans are not toasters, and no one on this earth 'works properly'; that is in fact, why we are here in the first place. Everyone has a life to live, and I feel that no other human should be able to take that away from us. God only can do that. I also feel that life sentences should be for life. We have rules as a planet/country that need to be abided by. If sentence time is increased, the crime rate will decrease. Whatever lesson can you teach a person who has just murderd 300 people by killing them? In jail for life will get them thinking. Do you suppose that after death in prison they will not be punished? I am not talking about hell (I for one don't beleive in it), but for every crime, there is a punishment. I feel that we must leave that for God to decide. We did not place each other here, we did not will for light, and we did not create ourselves, or give our selves life, so why should we hold the right to take that away from one another? I respect everyone's opinions, and I do agree that an opinion is not a question of right and wrong-if that is, you are judging from a human mind. As we evolve and grow as a human race, we will loose sight of wrong/right moral opinions, because we will have a better understanding of what is actually right, and what God wills us to do. I speak of a time far, far from where we are now. Mother Nature takes care of trees, and plants; and she is very benevolent. However, we must all live and work together so that we can get rid of the cruelty that is in fact so ungracious and non-defendable. A non-judgemental world is a world of advancement where judgement is not needed nor wanted for the simple fact that crimes do not occure; and do not think a world of peace does not exist. We should confront evil, and stand up to it in a non contradictory manner-that is to say, in a manner where we would not be 'stooping down to their level.' Once again, this is MY opinion, and I hold the upmost respect for yours Blessings, Rain

Geenius at Wrok	01 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Rain Whatever lesson can you teach a person who has just murderd 300 people by killing them? In jail for life will get them thinking. IMO, it's not about teaching them a lesson. The ne plus ultra is prevention. The death penalty should be reserved for those whose criminal ways cannot be corrected by any other means. (There's also the question of deterrence, but I don't believe that the death penalty is ever effective as a deterrent: the crimes that are typically punished by execution are either heat-of-the-moment crimes, in which the perpetrator doesn't stop to consider consequences, or coldly premeditated ones, in which the perpetrator simply doesn't care.)

Diana	01 Jun 2002
I'm not interested in teaching a lesson to someone who has killed three hundred people. Swat him like a fly, I would! But Rain, your vision is grand and utopian, and I'm glad there are people around who are able to temper my own anger. I really enjoyed reading your post. Now, where did I put my fly-swatter?

Rain	01 Jun 2002
No one should be interested in teaching them a lesson, because it wouldn't be you in their shoes. I feel that spiritually, we are all here to help each other grow and advance towards God. By killing something He created, we are delaying their advancement. I wasn't referring to what I said as Utopia. What I meant by that is that there are many planets in the universe, and many of God's creation...who is to say that on one or many of those planets that Utopia doesn't exist? Just a thought... Rain

crystalmoon	01 Jun 2002
I am very much in favor of it depending on the crime commited and whether or not the person quilty is quilty w/o a shadow of a doubt. Some people put to death were actually innocent. It costs a fortune to keep prisoners in prison about $23,000 a year or so, so I've heard. In the long run it would be cheaper to put them to death than keep them alive. I don't think just anyone just be put to death but some crimes are so horrible and the people show no remorse for what they've done WHY keep them alive in a prison with our tax dollars. I head once that a man raped a 12 yr old year and cut off both of her arms so she couldn't go for help( but she did manage to get help) and once caught only served maybe 20 years or less in prison(I do not know for a fact that is true but that's what I was told so who knows), now tell me why that person should be allowed to live. Maybe I'm a bit harsh but certain crimes really get to me. My husband had a good idea for certain people such a rapists: Let them out on an announced given date so all concerned can be waiting for him/her to do with him as they will. I think we should bring back the guillotine(?). Maybe that'll make people think twice before commiting the crime in the 1st place. In some cases I am not always sure about the death penalty and I think it can be overused and abused but some people I think will just keep being violent till the day they die and why keep them in prison at everyone elses cost. Prisons are very expensive to run. I think maybe we should just look for better ways altogether! I feel bad for the peoples families but there is a bit of poetic justice for the victims families in some cases. It's a very controsversal(?) subject and one that not everyone will ever agree on. I sometimes doubt my thoughts on it for the fact that only the Gods/Goddess, Fate or what have you should decide when someone dies but again prisons are an expensive cost. If you remember to movie "Braveheart" and how horribly he died in that movie, if we did that again, as inhumane and disgusting as it is, maybe people would commit crimes less, who knows. Anyway these are my thoughts.

The Death Penalty thread was originally posted on 27 May 2002 in the Chat board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Chat, or read more archived threads.