talkpolitics | (no subject)

I'm going to attempt to argue a theory here; many may jump on me for the real-world practice that goes on, but this is not about that.

In theory, I support the death penalty. This is an eye-for-an-eye sort of justice.
If you take anothers life, delibrately, in cold blood, in a pre-meditated fashion, you have lost your right to live, IMO.

Now, since this penalty is to be administered by the govt, there ought be some strict guidelines. Here is what I propose:

Either:
A) You are caught in the act by the authorities (but the person dies before he/she can be rushed to the hospital)
B) There is overwhelming evidence against you--personally I feel that four criteria would be met for this:

fingerprint
DNA
eye-witness
video of event (audio is a plus, but I feel these four are sufficient to ensure that the guilty party is the one being punished)

These strict requirements, are, to my knowledge, not required anyplace where the death penalty is enacted. Thus my theoretical support of the death penalty does not support the real-world way in which the death penalty is applied in the US (or elsewhere)

I recognize that in the US (and prolly elsewhere too) the death penalty is applied in a biased manner and that in too many cases the wrong person is executed. I feel that the criteria I laid out are sufficient to ensure no wrongful executions -- though, of course, I am open to hear contrary views on that.

Let us put aside issues of economic cost (which vary) and issues of how to execute (which vary) and focus on the question of: "Is execution for murder an acceptable punishment?"

I feel that it is; I feel that one forfits their right to live when they steal that right from another. I believe in human rights that are inherent but not absolute--the human rights that we all have are what we start with, but we do not necessarily retain them forever. We can lose them.

Thoughts?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ah, but my stance is that he doesn't deserve even the satisfaction of a warm meal, or a happy shit; life in prison might not be the most fun, but it is life. One may still feel pleasure while one is alive, even if imprisoned. Yet I am not for torturing one who is imprisoned, so, to deprive them of pleasure (which I feel they gave up the right to have) but not be cruel (via torture) we execute Saddam.

Then serve him cold unhappy shit.

Oh I'm sure one could feel pleasure in jail. At first it's painful but once he gets used to it, he'll like it.

Or so I was told. ;)

Invent a toilet seat that jabs your ass cheeks uncomfortably when you sit on it, thus either annoying the prisoner or forcing them to constantly squat and hover over the toilet causing strain to their hamstrings etc.

I'm sure if we get creative we can find all manner of ways of making prison pretty unpleasant for people xD

Yeah, but then you are devolving into torture; I agree with what a guy named Bruce once told me: we deserve better than to turn our population into torturers.

Turning them into a population of executioners? ;P

Could you point me to irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for murder in the USA? I'm not aware this was ever even a charge.

I mean you don't try somebody in Japan for a murder in England.

While he may have ordered the deaths of Kurds and other people's in his own nation, as a citizen of a nation where the death penalty has been banned for many decades, I should be able to charge your Presidents, Governors and Judges for capitol crimes?

Holy shit.

I wish! ;)

Crimes against humanity?

Can we not execute genocidal or ethnic cleansing despots?
How many Kurds did he kill?

Crimes of Saddam Hussein (http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm) approximate he is responsible for approximately 200,000 deaths, including Kurds and Kuwaitis. Other sources have slightly higher or lower figures but 200,000 is about average.

Now consider the freedomizing efforts of the coalition of the willing who are personally responsible for approximately 655,000 indiscriminate Iraqi deaths (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/11/iraq.iraq). With that kind of freedom I completely understand why the tyranny of Saddam might be preferable.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I did not support the idea of invading Iraq, I do not think we were justified in going in.
However, I'm also not going to defend the right of Saddam Hussein to be a murdering jackass.

So how about the case of Slobodan Milosevic?
We, the world community, should engage in and actively stop genocidal dictators--but we shouldn't kill 650,000 civilians in the process. I mean, yeah; that's obvious....right?

On the one hand, Saddam Hussein was arrested and held by Americans for crimes committed in a foreign jurisdiction. He was tried and executed by Iraqis in what was a very speedy proceeding in a country so devastated by the freedomizing that they still have basic infrastructure issues. Not just water and power, but law and order too. Somehow with American assistance they managed to pull it together and issue swift justice.

On another hand, Slobodan Milosevic was being tried for war crimes (a trial that lasted over 5years), including genocide, at the ICC in Hague, Holland. He died of natural causes in the War Criminal Prison.

This entry is about capital punishment. This thread is assuming that genocidal maniacs not only deserve execution, but assumes they will get execution when convicted. By hanging, electric chair, lethal injection, guillotine, gun squad, etc. But an execution never the less.

At the modern international tribunals, capital punishment is banned, and conviction results in a sentence for a term of years. The convicted person serves his or her sentence in a national prison system, whose country has agreed with the tribunal to effect execution of sentence.

Not saying that rotting is prison is a better solution then chopping off their head. Not saying it is more or less humane. What I am saying is lowering the justice to the level of the crime is vendetta disguised as justice.

Use of the death penalty around the world (as of June 2009).
Blue... Abolished for all offenses (94)
Green... Abolished for all offenses except under special circumstances (10)
Orange... Retains, though not used for at least 10 years (35)
Red... Retains death penalty (58)* *Note that, while laws vary between U.S. states, it is considered retentionist because the federal death penalty is still in active use.

"What I am saying is lowering the justice to the level of the crime is vendetta disguised as justice."

Your language is loaded; you imply that it is lowering the level of justice. A life for a life (an eye for an eye style justice) is more just, to some, than a life behind bars for a life.

yes. Steal from me I steal from you is silly.
Rape my loved ones and I'll rape you.
Speed on my treet I'll speed on yours.
this isn't justice. It's chaos.