We are such proponents of a culture of life that...

[PanzerJaeger]

As i said, I dont really care how that dispute is worked out as long as he is executed.

Now why were you in such a rush to impugn the culture of life when this has nothing to do with it?

[Productivity]

Well she didn't stomp an old lady to death. He did! So I will reserve my 'hoping bad things happen' for the brutal murderer rather than the upset niece!

The upset niece who if she has her way could directly contribute to the death of an innocent.

I'd call it murder.

[sharrukin]

What does the death penalty do to keep criminals from killing that life without chance of parole does?

Well 'life without chance of parole' doesn't put an end to their worthless lives.
And since there is in reality no such thing as life without chance of parole, it in fact prevents them from getting out after twenty years and killing again. The mythical 'life without chance of parole' exists only in arguments against the death penalty and is usually then never heard from again.

[sharrukin]

Don't kill them just put them away.

Why not execute them? Why should we spend any more time on them than we must?

If it costs too much, make them pay for their accomodation, out of their assets ceased. i.e. if he has 20 years to serve he has to pay back $600,000 dollars. ($30,000 for each year served). If he has no money, make him work it off in Prison and then after while on parole and thereafter.

We probably should do this to all criminals. Make them pay for their time served. User Pays . he he :D

And after he kills someone while out on parole or 7 years later? Why not just get rid of him?

[sharrukin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Well she didn't stomp an old lady to death. He did! So I will reserve my 'hoping bad things happen' for the brutal murderer rather than the upset niece!

The upset niece who if she has her way could directly contribute to the death of an innocent.

I'd call it murder.

He committed murder and was sentenced to death for his crime. He cannot exercise the freedoms he would normally have if he wasn't a 'Brutal Murderer'. So the niece is the one who is supposed to assume the burden of looking after his sister. His family is the last group of people on earth she should have any responsibility to look out for. And if she doesn't spend time and effort looking after his family she is in your eyes just as bad as he is?

[Proletariat]

As i said, I dont really care how that dispute is worked out as long as he is executed.

Blood! Blood! Blood makes the green grass grow!

Now why were you in such a rush to impugn the culture of life when this has nothing to do with it?

You don't see any irony here at all?

[Productivity]

He committed murder and was sentenced to death for his crime. He cannot exercise the freedoms he would normally have if he wasn't a 'Brutal Murderer'. So the niece is the one who is supposed to assume the burden of looking after his sister. His family is the last group of people on earth she should have any responsibility to look out for. And if she doesn't spend time and effort looking after his family she is in your eyes just as bad as he is?

In her world, she would prefer that he could not donate a vital organ to his sister.

But for that wish, the vital organ would go to the sister, saving her. But for her actions, the sister will die. Do what you will with the murderer, but why should another innocent become a victim as well.

[Papewaio]

No family member of the murderer should benefit from his death.

If the liver was going to an unrelated third party then it would be okay.

Otherwise by giving the liver to a family member you are rewarding them for having murderers in the family. That kind of eugenic reward program is not good for any society.

[Kanamori]

It would have to be a split liver transplant.

[PanzerJaeger]

You don't see any irony here at all?

Nope. The culture of life mentality has never extended to people who stomp old ladies to death. There is no conflict in my viewpoint.

[Proletariat]

Nope. The culture of life mentality has never extended to people who stomp old ladies to death. There is no conflict in my viewpoint.

Right, because the irony has to do with the murderer's death.

[PanzerJaeger]

When did I ever say the woman shouldnt get the liver?

[Proletariat]

When did I say the murderer shouldn't be killed?

I can play, too. At least Pape bothered with a reason one way or the other on the innocent sister's life.

[bmolsson]

Hmmm..... A discussion on if it's ok to wait with an execution in order to make the harvest of a liver possible....... Sigh........

[Papewaio]

Hmmm..... A discussion on if it's ok to wait with an execution in order to make the harvest of a liver possible....... Sigh........

Yes its Pate for the course

[sharrukin]

In her world, she would prefer that he could not donate a vital organ to his sister.

But for that wish, the vital organ would go to the sister, saving her. But for her actions, the sister will die. Do what you will with the murderer, but why should another innocent become a victim as well.

Well as I have previously stated I think they should harvest his body for working parts! It may be the only useful thing he can contribute. I just do not see blaming the victims of violent crimes for not caring enough about the family of the attacker!

But for her actions, the sister will die. HE IS THE ONE WHO CREATED THE SITUATION! NOT HER!

If the choice was mine I would use the liver to save a life, though as Papewaio points out it would be better if it was not his sister. The genetic relationship however may not allow any other choice. The niece of the murdered woman doesn't owe his family anything!

[Ironside]

No family member of the murderer should benefit from his death.

If the liver was going to an unrelated third party then it would be okay.

Otherwise by giving the liver to a family member you are rewarding them for having murderers in the family. That kind of eugenic reward program is not good for any society.

Pape don't you think that he would still give a part of his liver if he was a nice citizen? It's not that liver donations kills the giver.

BTW, sharrukin are you volunteering for being the guy that gets innocently executed because of a sloppy police-investigation?

[sharrukin]

BTW, sharrukin are you volunteering for being the guy that gets innocently executed because of a sloppy police-investigation?

yeah, that is in fact going to happen and unfortunately it's not going to be a volunteer. However it is also going to happen because the state let someone out who will then kill again. Are you volunteering to be that person?

I see the state as having responsibility for the administration of justice. If it fails in that by letting a murderer walk it is just as responsible for that death as it would be if they sat the murderer down on old'sparky. The benefit of the death penalty is that the vast majority of people who die are criminals.

[Productivity]

But for her actions, the sister will die. HE IS THE ONE WHO CREATED THE SITUATION! NOT HER!

If the choice was mine I would use the liver to save a life, though as Papewaio points out it would be better if it was not his sister. The genetic relationship however may not allow any other choice. The niece of the murdered woman doesn't owe his family anything!

That is a constant. His actions are parameters that have been set, and cannot be changed anymore.

The actions that can save a life (ie. supporting a stay of his execution until he can give his liver to his sister) is something that can be changed, and if the niece denies this and the sister dies, the death of the sister is directly upon her.

Nobody is advocating that the murderer not gets executed (at least not in the context of this, I personally disagree iwth the death penalty, but that is not the argument here). They are advocating a temporary stay, untilhe can give his liver.

Nobody is saying that she has to care about the family of the criminal. All I'm saying is that she should not be allowed to make a decision, which potentially could kill someone. Especially when all that decision will do is bring the inevitable slightly closer.

Remind yourself what this niece thinks. "But if Johnson were allowed to donate the liver, she said, "He is going to be remembered more as a hero for saving his sister than for this brutal murder."".

She obviously feels that he should not be allowed to donate his liver, and that feeling will quite possibly kill an innocent. It may not be murder in the eyes of the law, but in my eyes that is as good as choosing to murder someone.

[Ironside]

I see the state as having responsibility for the administration of justice. If it fails in that by letting a murderer walk it is just as responsible for that death as it would be if they sat the murderer down on old'sparky. The benefit of the death penalty is that the vast majority of people who die are criminals.

So you want to execute people so they cannot ever be released and possibly kill an innocent again, but when this process will end up killing innocent people it's ok?

New argument please, as I think this one is quite dead.

[Redleg]

So you want to execute people so they cannot ever be released and possibly kill an innocent again, but when this process will end up killing innocent people it's ok?

No its not okay - every death pently case needs to be look at in detail both before the actual trail of the individual and if the person is convicted the the case needs to be looked at even more closely to insure that all aspects of the legal process were fully meet, and the there were no inconsistentencies (SP) with the police investigation or the criminal trail. If the United States is going to maintain the death pently as an option - our criminal trail process must be fine tuned to insure that such mistakes do not happen.

I have given my stance on the death pently a lot of thought - I think in some cases it is warranted and must be an option in the criminal trail process - just like my position on abortion is that I am against it - but in the first trimester it is the woman's choice.

However since you are against the death pently - are you also against abortion in all its forms - because to be against the death pently and for abortion makes you just another hypocrite - and there are already plenty of us on these boards about that.

New argument please, as I think this one is quite dead.

Not yet - I think the convicted criminal should be allowed to have a stay on his execution to donate part of his liver to his sister. And its perfectly okay for the murdered lady's family members to be upset that the state is going to allow the stay. However the state must take into consideration the overall society good of allowing the stay - an innocent person is allowed to recieve a donated liver transplant from a willing doner. And if it allows the convicted criminal to at least attempt to mitigate his actions by saving another life - then that is the right course of action.

[Spetulhu]

I think the convicted criminal should be allowed to have a stay on his execution to donate part of his liver to his sister. And its perfectly okay for the murdered lady's family members to be upset that the state is going to allow the stay. However the state must take into consideration the overall society good of allowing the stay - an innocent person is allowed to recieve a donated liver transplant from a willing doner. And if it allows the convicted criminal to at least attempt to mitigate his actions by saving another life - then that is the right course of action.

A fine way of looking at the situation!

[Ironside]

Not yet - I think the convicted criminal should be allowed to have a stay on his execution to donate part of his liver to his sister. And its perfectly okay for the murdered lady's family members to be upset that the state is going to allow the stay. However the state must take into consideration the overall society good of allowing the stay - an innocent person is allowed to recieve a donated liver transplant from a willing doner. And if it allows the convicted criminal to at least attempt to mitigate his actions by saving another life - then that is the right course of action.

I agree.

What I was commenting on was the before-mentioned argument, that isn't so hypocratic but circular, unless one way (for the innocent to die) is much more common than the other.
Thus you need a new argument to get anywere, unless you use the "lock the cell and throw away the key" argument = harder to get paroled if convicted for a life sentence. Some deserve it, some don't, so scrapping parole completly is somewhat unfair IMO.

But sharrukin cannot use that argument, not without changing opinion.

[Redleg]

I agree.

What I was commenting on was the before-mentioned argument, that isn't so hypocratic but circular, unless one way (for the innocent to die) is much more common than the other.
Thus you need a new argument to get anywere, unless you use the "lock the cell and throw away the key" argument = harder to get paroled if convicted for a life sentence. Some deserve it, some don't, so scrapping parole completly is somewhat unfair IMO.

But sharrukin cannot use that argument, not without changing opinion.

The locking them up and throwing away the key - is worse then the death pently in my opinion - so I am all for it for a lot of the convicted criminals. Image sitting in a 8 by 10 cell with only yourself for company - no Television, no radio. Only books and letters to read - and all those heavily censored and monitored for what the convicted criminal gets to read. Yep a worse punishment then death. Unfortunely no Prison system in the United States abides by this philisophy that I know of. Even the worse criminals get 1 hour of out of the cell time, and from what I understand get some Television and Radio priveledges.

[sharrukin]

So you want to execute people so they cannot ever be released and possibly kill an innocent again, but when this process will end up killing innocent people it's ok?

New argument please, as I think this one is quite dead.

Well your argument assumes there is an option where innocent people don't end up dead and that simply isn't true. You want to put people in prison but that option ends up killing innocent people as well. The difference is that at least the vast majority of the ones who are executed in my system are the guilty. Or do you think that even matters?

But sharrukin cannot use that argument, not without changing opinion.

Since that wasn't Sharrukin's argument to begin with he doesn't need to change his opinion! My argument was and is that the vast majority of those who are convicted are in fact guilty as charged. We do not live in a perfect world and mistakes will happen. It is a fantasy to suggest that we will not execute thoses who are innocent of any crime. That is simply being realistic.

Not executing criminals and letting them out kills more innocent people than using the death penalty ever could. If you are interested in something else other than moral posing you must make a decision that will kill innocent people either way. A few innocents will die by execution but far more will die if you do nothing.

[Hurin_Rules]

you throw the pies, i'll snatch their livers!!

So good, I had to add it to my signature.

[Ironside]

Not executing criminals and letting them out kills more innocent people than using the death penalty ever could. If you are interested in something else other than moral posing you must make a decision that will kill innocent people either way. A few innocents will die by execution but far more will die if you do nothing.

I would like to see some stats on this.

Sweden hasn't had any case on what you describe for the last 40 years, atleast.

And I know atleast one case where a man got convicted for life in prison (for murder) when he was innocent. Assuming that life in prison gets converted to death penalty, I would say that Sweden does not follow your ideas.

[sharrukin]

I would like to see some stats on this.

Sweden hasn't had any case on what you describe for the last 40 years, atleast.

And I know atleast one case where a man got convicted for life in prison (for murder) when he was innocent. Assuming that life in prison gets converted to death penalty, I would say that Sweden does not follow your ideas.

If you are actually unaware that criminals who get out of prison on parole or simple release tend to commit crimes then there is really nothing to say. They are called 'Repeat-Offenders', the more technical term being reciticism and it actually does happen.

Sweden hasn't had any case on what you describe for the last 40 years, atleast. No repeat-offenders in Sweden? WOW! I am impressed!

[Goofball]

The difference is that at least the vast majority of the ones who are executed in my system are the guilty.

The "vast majority?" Well, that's comforting. Not.

[Adrian II]

The "vast majority?" Well, that's comforting. Not.

Elementary, my dear Goofball. And after we execute all lawyers who defend rape or murder suspects, we will never again convict a single innocent to death.