Last State Using Electric Chair Retires "Old Sparky"

[TomUS]

Who gave you the moral right, let alone the imperative, to take someone's life in cold blood?

The law. Taking a murderer's life is a moral necessity.

What gives the right to lock someone up in a cage for years? Want to eliminate that penalty too?

 

[8ball]

Should shoplifting teenagers have their chocolate randomly stolen?

This would be a bitch to administer . .

 

[untethered]

The law. Taking a murderer's life is a moral necessity.

So you say. You've yet to present an argument that might suggest that it is.

Most people's morals have prohibitions against killing defenceless people. How do you get from that strong prohibition to advocating it as a moral necessity?

Which part of "thou shalt not kill" do you not understand?

What gives the right to lock someone up in a cage for years? Want to eliminate that penalty too?

The state has the responsibility to take reasonable measures to maintain order in the community and protect public safety. A well-managed prison system strikes a good balance. Killing defenceless people does not, no matter what their crimes may have been.

 

[Poot]

Should shoplifting teenagers have their chocolate randomly stolen?

This would be a bitch to administer . .

Yeah, not to mention the fall-out from a pub fight, some of whom have been charged with assault... And drink driving ("Give me the car keys, this is my sixth pint, I'll have 'im!")

 

[TomUS]

If indeed execution is a punishment that fits the crime of murder, why isn't this principle applied to other crimes? Why are people who injure others jailed rather than injured themselves? Do you support corporal punishment, amputations?

Perhaps they should be injured...and jailed. Corporal punnishment is fine with me. Being kind to brutal criminals isn't compassionate to society. It's insane.

 

[untethered]

Perhaps they should be injured...and jailed. Corporal punnishment is fine with me. Being kind to brutal criminals isn't compassionate to society. It's insane.

So if someone breaks someone's leg, the state break's the criminal's leg?

If someone puts someone's eye out, the state puts the criminal's eye out? Or both their eyes?

Someone pushes someone off a building and leaves them paralysed from the neck down. The state arranges for the criminal to be left in a similar condition.

Is that what you have in mind?

 

[8ball]

Is that what you have in mind?

Over-generous use of the word 'mind'.

I thought if were just silly for a bit he'd go away.

Please don't feed the trolls.

 

[Sweaty Betty]

After that doc about death penalty methods, ive changed my mind- seeing what can happen in the electric chair was grim grim grim!±!!

 

[TomUS]

So you say. You've yet to present an argument that might suggest that it is.

Most people's morals have prohibitions against killing defenceless people. How do you get from that strong prohibition to advocating it as a moral necessity?

Which part of "thou shalt not kill" do you not understand?

The state has the responsibility to take reasonable measures to maintain order in the community and protect public safety. A well-managed prison system strikes a good balance. Killing defenceless people does not, no matter what their crimes may have been.

So, we have a difference of opinion.

"thou shalt not kill" - Are you a pacifist? No killing under any circumstances? To use the old example - Should there have been no violent resistance to Hitler?

 

[TomUS]

The state has the responsibility to take reasonable measures to maintain order in the community and protect public safety. A well-managed prison system strikes a good balance.

But aren't you disturbed that those jailed criminals are unhappy being locked up? Isn't deliberately inflicting mental anguish on someone immoral? Why not confine them in a Club Med resort?

 

[Poot]

So, we have a difference of opinion.

"thou shalt not kill" - Are you a pacifist? No killing under any circumstances? To use the old example - Should there have been no violent resistance to Hitler?

It wasn't just Hitler though, was it? He had one or two mates with him. . A bit different to a lone murderer. Surely you can see that?

 

[TomUS]

So if someone breaks someone's leg, the state break's the criminal's leg?

If someone puts someone's eye out, the state puts the criminal's eye out? Or both their eyes?

Someone pushes someone off a building and leaves them paralysed from the neck down. The state arranges for the criminal to be left in a similar condition.

Is that what you have in mind?

Not bad ideas. But paralizing someone would cost the gov too much to take care of them. About a year ago in my town, a meth addict robbed a store and then shot the clerk in the back of the head. The clerk is paralized for life. The criminal got 37 years which means he'll probably be out in less time. The penalty was way too soft.

 

[DexterTCN]

So, we have a difference of opinion.

"thou shalt not kill" - Are you a pacifist? No killing under any circumstances? To use the old example - Should there have been no violent resistance to Hitler?

Aye well you cunts waited 3 years while our country was fucking fighting and dying to save people from Hitler.

As I recall you were too busy selling him weapons, as per fucking usual.

Get off your moral high horse and learn some fucking history. We were fuckin dying and you didn't bother coming in until we paid you (paid that off a couple of years ago iirc).

And can we have a breakdown on who actually gets executed please? I want to compare colours and poverty in your oh-so-idealistic system and I'm thinking the coloured folks may not be doing so well in that particular league table.

Oh and by the way...spare me the fucking old testament spiel, you look like Bill OReilly.

 

[untethered]

So, we have a difference of opinion.

"thou shalt not kill" - Are you a pacifist? No killing under any circumstances? To use the old example - Should there have been no violent resistance to Hitler?

No, I'm not a pacifist. There is a substantial body of philosophy about the nature and methods of a just war. I agree with those ideas. It's got nothing to do with the death penalty, however.

So once again I ask, what gives you the moral right to kill a defenceless person in circumstances where that killing is entirely avoidable?

 

[untethered]

Not bad ideas. But paralizing someone would cost the gov too much to take care of them. About a year ago in my town, a meth addict robbed a store and then shot the clerk in the back of the head. The clerk is paralized for life. The criminal got 37 years which means he'll probably be out in less time. The penalty was way too soft.

So you'd be in favour of injuring criminals if there was a cheap way of looking after them? You don't have a problem with it in principle?

What happens when someone rapes your sister? Do you rape them?

 

[DexterTCN]

So you'd be in favour of injuring criminals if there was a cheap way of looking after them? You don't have a problem with it in principle?

What happens when someone rapes your sister? Do you rape them?

Rape's not a crime in the old testament.

 

[untethered]

But aren't you disturbed that those jailed criminals are unhappy being locked up? Isn't deliberately inflicting mental anguish on someone immoral? Why not confine them in a Club Med resort?

I'm not "disturbed" by it in the slightest. It is simply a consequence of doing what is necessary, reasonable, decent and moral to punish the criminal and to protect society. I'm sure we can both agree that the purpose of legal sanctions isn't to reward criminals.

My problem with the death penalty is that it's not necessary, reasonable, decent or moral. The alternative is.

If you support the death penalty, my assumptions are that:

1. You don't really know what necessary, reasonable, decent or moral mean.

2. You don't care, because acting out your sadism trumps all civic and personal virtues.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Rape's not a crime in the old testament.

True. It had more to do with a man's property rights. Clearly a civil case.

 

[8ball]

If you support the death penalty, my assumptions are that:

1. You don't really know what necessary, reasonable, decent or moral mean.

2. You don't care, because acting out your sadism trumps all civic and personal virtues.

I don't agree with that, personally.

My biggest problem with the death penalty is that the state can't be trusted with it.

 

[untethered]

I don't agree with that, personally.

My biggest problem with the death penalty is that the state can't be trusted with it.

If the state could be "trusted" with the death penalty, how do you think they should use it?

 

[8ball]

If the state could be "trusted" with the death penalty, how do you think they should use it?

I suppose I should have clarified my position in that I don't see it as something that can be entrusted to any body that has claimed a stake in a monopoly on violence.

Whether it can, in theory, be considered a just punishment is a different matter entirely, and I think in some circumstances it's hard to argue the point that it isn't.

 

[untethered]

Whether it can, in theory, be considered a just punishment is a different matter entirely, and I think in some circumstances it's hard to argue the point that it isn't.

I suppose we could get into a lengthy discussion about what "justice" is.

But my conclusion would be that killing someone in cold blood is a line that shouldn't be crossed. If some notion of "justice" requires it then I'll happily forego that justice for the next best alternative.

Murder is a grotesquely horrible crime. Rather than thinking that it should therefore attract the "ultimate punishment", I believe that we cannot punish the offender sufficiently without making a similar moral fault.

(It's worth pointing out that in many places, they have the death penalty for a range of offences more minor than murder.)

 

[8ball]

I guess if you draw a deontological 'line' at killing then there's no arguing with that.

My argument would be that if you don't believe a justice system should have a retrubutive system, then you should also be against imprisonment in anything like the form we have it at the moment.

Putting the moral philosophy aside, however, we're of the same opinion in practice.

Did you see the Horizon with Portillo?
TomUS is basically that guy at the end of the show (and if he saw the show he wouldn't deny it, either).

 

[Rentonite]

Here in America the Morals they are a changing,.... specifically on the Murder/death penalty situation.
It now seems to be that sexual child abuse has now become the "worst" thing a person can do. Here in the States it has long been obvious that the justice system can be grossly manipulated one way or the other. same as with elections (all the out of state plates in the polling place parking lots of New Hampshire)
So, the actual issue is weather we can accept it or not either way the illusion that any one person can somehow make it change is nieve.
But Hey Bewail away! Enjoy your consternation

 

[TomUS]

Aye well you cunts waited 3 years while our country was fucking fighting and dying to save people from Hitler.

As I recall you were too busy selling him weapons, as per fucking usual.

Get off your moral high horse and learn some fucking history. We were fuckin dying and you didn't bother coming in until we paid you (paid that off a couple of years ago iirc).

And can we have a breakdown on who actually gets executed please? I want to compare colours and poverty in your oh-so-idealistic system and I'm thinking the coloured folks may not be doing so well in that particular league table.

Oh and by the way...spare me the fucking old testament spiel, you look like Bill OReilly.

I'll ignore the flag waving WWII stuff since it's irrelevant, and the new testament stuff since I didn't bring it up. But let's do take a look at the stats on executions...and murders:

Of persons executed in 2007:
-- 28 were white
-- 14 were black

Of persons under sentence of death in 2006:
-- 1,802 were white
-- 1,352 were black
-- 28 were American Indian
-- 35 were Asian
-- 11 were of unknown race.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

93.2 percent of black victims were murdered by black offenders.

For murders where the race of the offender was known, 54.8 percent were black, 42.8 percent were white

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html
So, the majority of those executed is white, as would be expected. The majority of murderers are black. Nearly all blacks murdered are killed by other blacks.

You apparently want to go easy on the killers of blacks. How progerssive!

 

[chainsaw cat]

I'm against the DP but if I had to be executed I'd rather be hung using the British Long Drop system. Pretty much certain and as instant as it can be if you have an experienced and careful hangman. I think the record for being brought in to the death room and death itself is about 10 seconds.

Large calibre bullet through head from close range. Followed within 2 seconds by several more. Couldn't be quicker.

 

[chainsaw cat]

I'm sorry to see ol' sparky go. It should be the preferred method of execution. The main problem with the death penalty in the US is that it's far to easy on the criminal and not used nearly enough.

And that is exactly what the death penalty should do. Think of the criminal's victim. I think they usually suffered far more and were innocent victims.

I assume that this chap is some sort of joke?

 

[TomUS]

I assume that this chap is some sort of joke?

No joke. DEAD serious.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Rape's not a crime in the old testament.

Not necessarilly.


Seducers of women (ie rapists) did have to pay a penalty ie they had to marry and support the woman he had raped.

To impose a penalty of fifty shekels upon the seducer (of an unbetrothed virgin) and enforce the other rules in connection with the case (Ex. 22:15-16)

That the violator (of an unbetrothed virgin) shall marry her (Deut. 22:28-29)

That one who has raped a damsel and has then (in accordance with the law) married her, may not divorce her (Deut. 22:29).


OK its not perfect as an anti rape law and it only covers unbetrothed virgins but it did recognise the damage that non consensual sex does to some extent. Therefore the bible does accept the existence of rape.

 

[nino_savatte]

The death penalty is not cruel considering the crime. It has become rathar unusual in the US because there is a lack of guts to use it enough. But that is easily remidied

I don't think there has been one documented case of an innocent person being executed. But, mistakes will happen no matter what the penalty. There are probably quite a few innocents who've spent their lives in prison.

It is my preferred method because it is terrifying, as the death penalty should be, as all penalties should be if there is any possibility they will be effective.

Rubbish, it is a "cruel and unusual punishment".

Capital punishment is ineffective as a deterrent. If the reverse were true, then murder rates in the US would be much lower.

In the Middle Ages, punishments were designed to match the crime, in many cases, the punishments that were devised refelected the bloodlust of the mob. Captial punishment is state-sanctioned revenge carried out on behalf of the 'victim'; nothing moe, nothing less.