Yet another case that shows why the death penalty is such a bad idea

I am pretty sure if you were a jew in the 40s you would think different :embarassed:


So when we get osama will you want him to live also???

Yes.

Why??? not kill osama


what about killing in self defence, what do you think of it.

example


You are minding your own buisness at home; Some crack head comes in with an ax and tries to get you, you shoot him (well in the uk you have to hit him with your cricket bat ~D ) is it justified?

Killing in self defence is always justified if you felt you were severely threatened enough to use that kind of force and there was no other way to use force to stop yourself being harmed other than to kill the attacker. I would never have a problem with someone killing another person if these criteria are met.

I do have a problem with state sanctioned murder or society sanctioned murder, it does not reflect well upon those in a society to behave in such ways. Nor does it solve anything.

Yes it does solve something...it brings justice.


And you still didnt answer my question about if you were a jew in the fortys.

And another question are you a pacsifist?

Retribution is not justice.

If I were a Jew in the 40's eh? Well I was and am not, so it doesn't apply. It is like asking what I would feel like if I was a flea on a Dog's arse. It doesn't apply, I do not have the experience and will never be in that situation so whatever I say is meaningless. On top of that, whatever I would say is meaningless because if I was to have been in the situation I could have felt completely different anyway. So for me to give an answer to your question would be as meaningful as me typing random letters. asadwqs vdsfsd vdffvfd aewdjfioaj adj sqadjsap pojap j.

OK?

Quote:

---

pac·i·fism Audio pronunciation of "pacifist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps-fzm)
n.

1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
1. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
2. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

---

Yes.

However I do believe military action and violent action - as I have stated already - is needed and justified at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I am not dismissing the reasons or causes for revolution. I am pointing out, correctly I might add, that revolution (justified or no) is an offensive action. That is the point. This is black and white.

---

I don't know that it's so black and white. The American revolution was about protecting our rights, property and self-determination. You call it an offensive attack, I think it's a matter of saying 'enough is enough'.

Quote:

---

Equity is considered the basis of justice. Justice is considered the basis of law. A society of law is superior to barbarism in that it creates a uniform standard whereby order can be maintained, security instilled, fairness documented and peace abound.

---

Where does the death penalty fit into this? It creates equity- without such equity (executions) there can be no justice? You're going to have to do more that just say it's so to convince me. Give me something concrete. You can have uniform standards and equal treatment under the law without executions.

I agree with JAG 100 percent in this matter. Perhaps we do not have great arguments for our viewpoints, but that is what we believe.
Saying to quit while he is ahead is like one of us telling a religous person to quit while there ahead, because they have far less proof of god than there is proof of not god.

Pindar, yes, Hitler should not have been killed. He should have been in a highly public trial that anyone could come to to see the monster, then locked up in a cell until he died.
Osama would be even more logical to be kept alive. He could give extremely important information about Al Quedia. Then he should be given a very public, fair trial, sentenced to be locked up in a cell until he dies. Killing him would make him a martyr.

Killing in self defense, war, and assassination of a legitimate target (Osama or Hitler, for example), is to be avoided, but in the end, acceptable.

Quote:

---

JAG, your argument is shot full of holes. You can't support it with anything but " It should be everyone's view."

---

Can you show me where I have tried to justify my belief? If not - as you will not be able to since I have purely given opinion on the matter of the death penalty - how can you state that my argument is "full of holes"? I haven't given one.

I can support my view perfectly, thank you very much, if I choose to do it you will be the first to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Pindar, yes, Hitler should not have been killed. He should have been in a highly public trial that anyone could come to to see the monster, then locked up in a cell until he died.
Osama would be even more logical to be kept alive. He could give extremely important information about Al Quedia. Then he should be given a very public, fair trial, sentenced to be locked up in a cell until he dies. Killing him would make him a martyr.

Killing in self defense, war, and assassination of a legitimate target (Osama or Hitler, for example), is to be avoided, but in the end, acceptable.

---

See, I might disagree just a bit there. I think they can be killed, if it's determined to be for the greater good. For example, if Osama were imprisoned, and his being alive drives a terrorist movement bent on freeing him- highjackings, ect... I say put him down. More people shouldn't have to die just so we can keep one scumbag alive. ~;)

Honestly, I don't feel near so strongly about capital punishment as I do say... abortion. Because, when you get down to it, the people being executed have brought it on themselves through their own actions. In principle, yes, I'm opposed to uneccessary killing (which I feel it is), but you won't see me out protesting any executions.

Quote:

---

Posted by Pindar
Going with your feelings: if Hitler had been captured, it would have been wrong to execute him? Is this your view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

It should be everyone's view.

---

Killing in self defence is always justified

ceasar010: "And another question are you a pacifist?"

Yes...

Killing in self defence is always justified

---

JAG,

Your comments are a non sequitur writ large.

removal of "colorful" language - Ser Clegane

Xiahou, well if he's trying to escape or something, it's all good. But he could be easily turned into a martyr if killed "Osama's in (whatever the Jihadist's heaven is) with his whole bunch of virgins, yay, let's all join him". Not that that isn't already happening... Hmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I don't know that it's so black and white. The American revolution was about protecting our rights, property and self-determination. You call it an offensive attack, I think it's a matter of saying 'enough is enough'.

---

Saying 'enough is enough' is fine, but the Revolution was an offensive act. Theoretically this should be clear. Practically it is also obvious. Lexington and Concord, the first engagements of the Revolution, were militia attacking British troops on the march.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Pindar, Equity is considered the basis of justice. Justice is considered the basis of law. A society of law is superior to barbarism in that it creates a uniform standard whereby order can be maintained, security instilled, fairness documented and peace abound.

---

Where does the death penalty fit into this? It creates equity- without such equity (executions) there can be no justice? You're going to have to do more that just say it's so to convince me. Give me something concrete. You can have uniform standards and equal treatment under the law without executions.

---

Recall your question: "Pushing that aside, what is the benefit to this ethereal notion of "equity"? " The above is a brief explanation of the 'benefit' of equity. It is the basis of justice systems and has been so for literally millennia of intellectual history. CP, also concerned with justice, fits into this rubric.

Now I have already explained the whys and wherefores of equity, but I can give an explanation again if you would like. Equity refers to redress. It refers to a basic owed status. If I steal someone's cow, justice demands I return the cow or its equivalent value. If I seize anything not my own the same dynamic applies. Taking someone's life (murder) is a theft of the thing most personal to the self. How does one give redress? By losing one's own life, nothing else can compare in value.

Uniform standards are no guarantee of justice. One may think uniformity is a necessary condition for justice, but alone it is not sufficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

EDIT: removal of "colorful" language - Ser Clegane

---

JAG, don't be vulgar. If you cannot put forward a rational and defensible view, best avoid the discussion.

EDIT: I concur - Ser Clegane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

See, I might disagree just a bit there. I think they can be killed, if it's determined to be for the greater good.

---

This would seem to undercut your opposition to CP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Pindar, yes, Hitler should not have been killed.

Killing in self defense, war, and assassination of a legitimate target (Osama or Hitler, for example), is to be avoided, but in the end, acceptable.

---

These two statements seem strained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This would seem to undercut your opposition to CP.

---

Not in my mind.
Like I've said, I'm opposed to needless or senseless death. If people are being blown up because were have Osama in prison, I'd say it'd be time to reevaluate that. I'm not so naive as to think that our civilization can exist without some deaths- they had just better be for good reason. Self-defense, was my clearest example of that.

I'm sure even you'd agree that if we had our druthers, everyone would be happy and live in peace and harmony- we both know that's not possible, at least on this world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

These two statements seem strained.

---

How so? I am against the principal of war and assassinations, but I know that it has to happen sometimes, especially in the case of genocide etc. Someone who is in custody, unarmed, and isn't a direct threat is totally different from killing someone who is armed and dangerous and trying to kill people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

How so? I am against the principal of war and assassinations, but I know that it has to happen sometimes, especially in the case of genocide etc.

---

Then why dont you support iraq, That dictator ship killed hundreds of thousands of people

Because at the beggining of the war, it seemed to me that the people of Iraq would be hurt more by an invasion. In addition, there were (and still are) many other murderos nuts, and it seems hypocritical to just go after one.
Now that we are in Iraq, I believe it would be far more harmful to pull out. It doesn't mean that I support the war, however.

Quote:

---

Uniform standards are no guarantee of justice. One may think uniformity is a necessary condition for justice, but alone it is not sufficient.

---

If we assume that justice relies on more than just uniformity, does that mean uniformity is not necessary for justice? If that isn't what the statement means, I do not understand the inclusion of "but". Please, explain. (I understand the appeal to some other moral authority. What if that moral authority only includes uniformity as the requirment for justice?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Saying 'enough is enough' is fine, but the Revolution was an offensive act. Theoretically this should be clear. Practically it is also obvious. Lexington and Concord, the first engagements of the Revolution, were militia attacking British troops on the march.

---

Yes, but what were they on the march to do? It certainly wasn't a parade....

Quote:

---

Recall your question: "Pushing that aside, what is the benefit to this ethereal notion of "equity"? " The above is a brief explanation of the 'benefit' of equity. It is the basis of justice systems and has been so for literally millennia of intellectual history. CP, also concerned with justice, fits into this rubric.

---

Simply stating that equity is the basis of criminal justice doesn't prove it so.

Quote:

---

Now I have already explained the whys and wherefores of equity, but I can give an explanation again if you would like. Equity refers to redress. It refers to a basic owed status. If I steal someone's cow, justice demands I return the cow or its equivalent value. If I seize anything not my own the same dynamic applies. Taking someone's life (murder) is a theft of the thing most personal to the self. How does one give redress? By losing one's own life, nothing else can compare in value.

---

Replacing one's cow vs killing yourself is not the same. There's no compensation in the murders death. When you replace a cow, you have your posession back. When you execute a murderer, the murdered is still dead. All you've achieved is killing yet another person. There's no compensating someone for being dead, because no matter what you do they're still dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Not in my mind.
Like I've said, I'm opposed to needless or senseless death. If people are being blown up because were have Osama in prison, I'd say it'd be time to reevaluate that. I'm not so naive as to think that our civilization can exist without some deaths- they had just better be for good reason. Self-defense, was my clearest example of that.

I'm sure even you'd agree that if we had our druthers, everyone would be happy and live in peace and harmony- we both know that's not possible, at least on this world.

---

Interesting, so you have a qualified acceptance of CP. CP as an expediency is OK (kill bin Laden to stop bombings). Is that right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Yes, but what were they on the march to do? It certainly wasn't a parade....

---

I hope the larger point (revolutions are offensive acts) isn't going to get lost in the details. The British column was marching to secure an armory because they feared bloodshed may be in the near future: given the Boston Tea Party an other attacks had already occurred.

This tangent began because you said something akin to: war could only be justified if it were self defense (suggesting responding to an attack). I have pointed to the birth of the nation as an offensive act. Therefore one must either condemn the Revolution or reconsider the initial view.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The Good Guys The above is a brief explanation of the 'benefit' of equity. It is the basis of justice systems and has been so for literally millennia of intellectual history. CP, also concerned with justice, fits into this rubric.

---

Simply stating that equity is the basis of criminal justice doesn't prove it so.

---

I don't understand this. Are you challenging the historical point? If so, please refer to the Code of Hammurabi, the Mosaic Law, the Athenian Constitution or any Greek city state, Roman Law (say the Code of Justinian) on down to the birth of the U.S. I am unaware of any judicial code that does not refer to equity as a cardinal principle.

If this is meant to suggest you will put forward a non-equity based jurisprudence: please do so.

Quote:

---

Replacing one's cow vs killing yourself is not the same. There's no compensation in the murders death. When you replace a cow, you have your posession back. When you execute a murderer, the murdered is still dead. All you've achieved is killing yet another person. There's no compensating someone for being dead, because no matter what you do they're still dead.

---

I have not advocated killing yourself.

Quite right, there is no compensating the dead, you cannot give them back their metaphorical cow: it has been permanently erased and that is the point. Their murder is infinite in scope. They will not be coming back, ever. This infinite loss reflects back on the murderer. A debt is owed the murdered A dept is owed the state whose citizen was killed, and a dept is owed his Creator who is the source of life (assuming theological appeals have some quarter). The administrator of justice is the state therefore it is left to the state to collect on the dept. The nature of that collection must be a comparable loss: the murderer gave up the right to his own life when he took another's. This is the nature of justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

How so? I am against the principal of war and assassinations, but I know that it has to happen sometimes...

---

If "it" sometimes has to happen that would suggest some justification of the principle and call into question opposition to the principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Interesting, so you have a qualified acceptance of CP. CP as an expediency is OK (kill bin Laden to stop bombings). Is that right?

---

Little in the world is in clear black & white. As I've said, there must be exceptions for the greater good. Killing civillians in bad, I think we can agree- yet, the bombing of Hiroshima was justified to end the war.

Quote:

---

I hope the larger point (revolutions are offensive acts) isn't going to get lost in the details. The British column was marching to secure an armory because they feared bloodshed may be in the near future: given the Boston Tea Party an other attacks had already occurred.

This tangent began because you said something akin to: war could only be justified if it were self defense (suggesting responding to an attack). I have pointed to the birth of the nation as an offensive act. Therefore one must either condemn the Revolution or reconsider the initial view.

---

I think the larger point was lost from the beginning on this line of argument. I never said war could only be justified in response to an attack. Personally, I thought the argument was something of a red herring.

Quote:

---

I don't understand this. Are you challenging the historical point? If so, please refer to the Code of Hammurabi, the Mosaic Law, the Athenian Constitution or any Greek city state, Roman Law (say the Code of Justinian) on down to the birth of the U.S. I am unaware of any judicial code that does not refer to equity as a cardinal principle.

---

I don't see the need to challenge your historical argument. We no longer cut the hands from theives, stone prostitutes or hang horse thieves. All of these have a historical basis, none are practiced today, and yet we still have a functioning justice system.

Quote:

---

Quite right, there is no compensating the dead, you cannot give them back their metaphorical cow: it has been permanently erased and that is the point. Their murder is infinite in scope. They will not be coming back, ever. This infinite loss reflects back on the murderer. A debt is owed the murdered A dept is owed the state whose citizen was killed, and a dept is owed his Creator who is the source of life (assuming theological appeals have some quarter). The administrator of justice is the state therefore it is left to the state to collect on the dept. The nature of that collection must be a comparable loss: the murderer gave up the right to his own life when he took another's. This is the nature of justice.

---

I don't know your religion, but mine doesn't teach that God demands an eye for an eye or a life for a life.

A bit off topic but on the news last night they were disscussing Saddams trial and sentencing. The people of Irq said the only question is do they hang him as murderer or shoot him as a miltary criminal. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

A bit off topic but on the news last night they were disscussing Saddams trial and sentencing. The people of Irq said the only question is do they hang him as murderer or shoot him as a miltary criminal. ~;)

---

Fine with me, if that's what they decide to do. I don't think that country will ever be able to move beyond Saddam's reign of terror while he's still alive. ~:cheers:

Hmm. I thought he was being held in America... he's being tried in Iraq? Or am I confused here?

Quote:

---

Uniform standards are no guarantee of justice. One may think uniformity is a necessary condition for justice, but alone it is not sufficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

If we assume that justice relies on more than just uniformity, does that mean uniformity is not necessary for justice? If that isn't what the statement means, I do not understand the inclusion of "but". Please, explain. (I understand the appeal to some other moral authority. What if that moral authority only includes uniformity as the requirment for justice?)

---

---

Necessity and sufficiency are logical conditions. Necessity applies to a standard that cannot be otherwise for some X, but cannot produce the X alone. For example: one must attend class in order to graduate, but it doesn't follow that simple attendance guarantees graduation. Sufficiency means all required conditions for X have been met. For example: reciting the Shahada in faith, "There is no God, but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet" is sufficient to be considered Muslim.

Now relating this to jurisprudence: uniformity may be a standard one appeals to when setting out a code of justice, but uniformity alone does not guarantee justice.