Congrats to state of Tennessee for executing justice on Stephen West last night.

So in your world, there are no appeals after a conviction?


Well, maybe I shorted that thought too much. Yes, I do believe in the right to appeals. hat is part of our legal system and should not be denied that choice. But, when/if that has been exhausted to no avail, then it becomes a different matter. And I do understand there has been overturns with today's science and DNA and such. And they should have a right to have that reviewed if they maintain a wrongful conviction pre-DNA availability. If they were truly wrong convicted, that will and should work to their favor. Otherwise, they no longer have the same rights of a free individual.

And if it comes to pass they were set up by false testimony's or a crooked department, then those individuals should take their place. that is no less criminal than the supposed crime itself.
 
Why is it worth the risk? It's not worth it financially, as already discussed in this thread. It's not worth it as a preventative measure, as already discussed in this thread. Is it worth it just for the sake of revenge? Of inflicting punishment? I would guess it's probably 50/50 on whether folks think life in solitary is worse than death. That's a conservative estimate.

If you think it's worth it I would like to see the reasons why. Apologize if already addressed.

I don't believe the death penalty should be off the table. That doesn't mean I think it should be used liberally, or that we shouldn't be looking at every possible way to tweak the system, but I believe some crimes are so heinous they warrant death. We can argue all kinds of what ifs, but if the argument goes to the extremes of either doing away with the death penalty or not(which this thread has done), I don't support doing away with it entirely. I think it should be limited, the process reformed, but not taken off the table.
 
Various states and the Feds have murdered people that were found to be innocent after the fact. It wasn't a sentence. It wasn't an accident. The state murdered them.

The state has no business executing anyone. One mistake should keep them from enacting the death penalty. There have been hundreds.
 
Do you know of anyone who celebrates abortion?
Where have you been? Asleep?

Screen-Shot-2019-06-05-at-9.59.25-AM.png


Miley Cyrus Wears Vagina Spikes in "Mother's Daughter" Music Video
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
Various states and the Feds have murdered people that were found to be innocent after the fact. It wasn't a sentence. It wasn't an accident. The state murdered them.

The state has no business executing anyone. One mistake should keep them from enacting the death penalty. There have been hundreds.

I just don't think the argument has to be in absolutes. If we play that game, arguments can easily be made to start eliminating so much more. It doesn't need to be an either or conversation.
 
I just don't think the argument has to be in absolutes. If we play that game, arguments can easily be made to start eliminating so much more. It doesn't need to be an either or conversation.
If one innocent person is executed by the State, that is one too many. The death penalty is not effective anyways to deter crime.
 
If one innocent person is executed by the State, that is one too many. The death penalty is not effective anyways to deter crime.
As I've said before, I think some crimes are so heinous they deserve death, so my argument isn't about deterrent. And no one wants to see an innocent killed. You're still using absolutes for your argument. There's more to discuss than either having the death penalty or not having it. It's not a black and white argument IMO. There's plenty of gray area to discuss, but some seem to be on this kick of appearing to be morally superior.
 
As I've said before, I think some crimes are so heinous they deserve death, so my argument isn't about deterrent. And no one wants to see an innocent killed. You're still using absolutes for your argument. There's more to discuss than either having the death penalty or not having it. It's not a black and white argument IMO. There's plenty of gray area to discuss, but some seem to be on this kick of appearing to be morally superior.
The state should never execute anyone. Period. Especially after they have botched numerous executions of the years. It is a black or white issue. Either you support the state murdering civilians, or you don't.
 
As I've said before, I think some crimes are so heinous they deserve death, so my argument isn't about deterrent. And no one wants to see an innocent killed. You're still using absolutes for your argument. There's more to discuss than either having the death penalty or not having it. It's not a black and white argument IMO. There's plenty of gray area to discuss, but some seem to be on this kick of appearing to be morally superior.

Still ignores the abuse of power/bad discretion issue.

Give the government power and it will be abused. Trust the government to make life and death decisions and they’ll eventually get one badly wrong. Then getting them badly wrong will become the norm. It’s the same reason why universal healthcare and/or death panels are such a horrible idea.

The government has a capacity to make bad decisions that’s directly proportionate to the size of the government, minus any constitutional restrictions on governmental authority multiplied by the strength of the institutions that enforce those restrictions.

So, it’s fundamentally unsound to grant significant authority, such as the power to kill citizens, to the government based on what you think or hope the government should or will do with that authority. You should instead always consider what you fear the government might do with that authority.
That has nothing to do with being morally superior. It’s about being realistic in your evaluation of the government’s capacity for responsible decision making.
 
Still ignores the abuse of power/bad discretion issue.

Give the government power and it will be abused. Trust the government to make life and death decisions and they’ll eventually get one badly wrong. Then getting them badly wrong will become the norm. It’s the same reason why universal healthcare and/or death panels are such a horrible idea.

The government has a capacity to make bad decisions that’s directly proportionate to the size of the government, minus any constitutional restrictions on governmental authority multiplied by the strength of the institutions that enforce those restrictions.

So, it’s fundamentally unsound to grant significant authority, such as the power to kill citizens, to the government based on what you think or hope the government should or will do with that authority. You should instead always consider what you fear the government might do with that authority.
That has nothing to do with being morally superior. It’s about being realistic in your evaluation of the government’s capacity for responsible decision making.
Same argument could be used to ask why we have police. If they get it wrong, and innocent people end up getting committed of crimes they never committed, drastically altering their lives, why do we have police? Hell, for that matter, if government is so completely broken to the point where we cannot trust them on anything, why have it? If laws are so horribly enforced, what's the point?

No doubt bad things happen in life and people get wronged, which is why we should never stop trying to improve the system. But it doesn't pay to deal in absolutes. No one wants to see an innocent harmed, whether by another citizen, or the police, or by the death penalty. And I'm not saying the death penalty should be imposed willy nilly. But it shouldn't be off the table as an option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
Same argument could be used to ask why we have police. If they get it wrong, and innocent people end up getting committed of crimes they never committed, drastically altering their lives, why do we have police? Hell, for that matter, if government is so completely broken to the point where we cannot trust them on anything, why have it? If laws are so horribly enforced, what's the point?

No doubt bad things happen in life and people get wronged, which is why we should never stop trying to improve the system. But it doesn't pay to deal in absolutes. No one wants to see an innocent harmed, whether by another citizen, or the police, or by the death penalty. And I'm not saying the death penalty should be imposed willy nilly. But it shouldn't be off the table as an option.
The fallacy of the first paragraph has already been detailed elsewhere in this thread. Government and police provide net positives for society. The death penalty does not. Death is also different from the power of incarceration, which is a poor invocation, on your part because it’s another government power for which abuse and overreach has become normalized.

So, you’re not arguing that the death penalty is less expensive than life in prison, that it’s an effective deterrent to crime, or that it will always be used appropriately by the government. Your basis for supporting the government’s ability to put people to death is that, in your personal opinion, some crimes warrant death. Correct?
 
Last edited:
I don't believe the death penalty should be off the table. That doesn't mean I think it should be used liberally, or that we shouldn't be looking at every possible way to tweak the system, but I believe some crimes are so heinous they warrant death. We can argue all kinds of what ifs, but if the argument goes to the extremes of either doing away with the death penalty or not(which this thread has done), I don't support doing away with it entirely. I think it should be limited, the process reformed, but not taken off the table.

I asked a specific question. Why, in your opinion, is it worth the risk? You've repeated that you think it is worth the risk of keeping, but not explained why.
 
Still ignores the abuse of power/bad discretion issue.

Give the government power and it will be abused. Trust the government to make life and death decisions and they’ll eventually get one badly wrong. Then getting them badly wrong will become the norm. It’s the same reason why universal healthcare and/or death panels are such a horrible idea.

The government has a capacity to make bad decisions that’s directly proportionate to the size of the government, minus any constitutional restrictions on governmental authority multiplied by the strength of the institutions that enforce those restrictions.

So, it’s fundamentally unsound to grant significant authority, such as the power to kill citizens, to the government based on what you think or hope the government should or will do with that authority. You should instead always consider what you fear the government might do with that authority.
That has nothing to do with being morally superior. It’s about being realistic in your evaluation of the government’s capacity for responsible decision making.

Exactly
 

VN Store



Back
Top