The Death Penalty

[Walter]

While I'm sympathetic to Foamy Dog's point of view, all else being equal, I'm inclined to take the perspective that the best penalty has not been adequately considered; that is, life imprisonment in solitary confinement without the possibility of parole.

Penalties serve two purposes; reactive - to provide a consequential reaction to an unlawful act, and proactive - to deter future unlawful acts.

In many cases death is the easy way out for some criminals while the prospect of spending a life in solitary confinement is unthinkable to most. I submit that life/solitary would be a more powerful deterrent than the death penalty.

Further, life in solitary will cause anti-death penalty advocates to lose the only legitimate argument against the death penalty; the possibility of executing an innocent person.

I'd only be worried that Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her leftist ilk would define life/solitary as cruel and unusual punishment.

[ItWillNeverWork]

"Further, life in solitary will cause anti-death penalty advocates to lose the only legitimate argument against the death penalty; the possibility of executing an innocent person."

so the fact that premeditated murder (I.E not in self defense) is immoral doesnt register on your radar as a legitimate argument against the death penalty?

[Walter]

ItWillNeverWork:

so the fact that premeditated murder (I.E not in self defense) is immoral doesnt register on your radar as a legitimate argument against the death penalty?

Yes it does register, but the notion of morality collides with the notion of penalty and of deterrence.

You are deflecting the issue from a suitable punishment to the morality of the individual/group/authority that must, as a consequence of an unconscionable act, react in a suitable manner.

The moral dilemma you describe would be an academic exercise unless and until someone commits a heinous act that requires a response.

Raising that issue (the morality of the execution process) is equivalent to raising the morality of constructing highways with public money extracted by force through taxation knowing full well that one or more people will die a violent death as a direct result of the fact that the highway provided the means and opportunity for deaths to occur in the first place.

[ItWillNeverWork]

if you seriously believe that then your head is further into the clouds than i previously thought.

you cant 'seperate' morality from an act merley to expediate a desirable outcome. morality exist as a constant and however much it would benefit a community for a murderer, rapist or paedophile to be gotten rid of it does not change the basic fact that two wrongs do not make a right.

I won't even reply to your road building analogy. I'll let you figure out by yourself why it is so obviously flawed.

[Walter]

so the fact that premeditated murder (I.E not in self defense) is immoral doesnt register on your radar as a legitimate argument against the death penalty?

Your handle on this board is clearly very well chosen.

Your "morality" isn't my "morality." Therefore it's not a "fact," as you put it.

As has been discussed in this thread by others more capable than I, there are a plethora of competing moral issues, most of which are interdependent and none of which are exclusive.

Your artificial simplification of an argument together with your willingness to ignore what I consider to be a legitimate alternative to the death penalty tells me why most of the solutions to significant issues, to you, are dismissed as "ItWillNeverWork" with no suitable alternatives proffered.

[ItWillNeverWork]

Life imprisonment. Hows that for an alternative?

[Walter]

ItWillNeverWork said:

Life imprisonment. Hows that for an alternative?

Sounds kinda like what I said earlier but you felt it was objectionable because of my additional comment that life in solitary as the "ultimate" penalty removes the only legitimate objection of the left to severe punishment for capital crimes.

Guess you came around so that we can agree again, IWNW!
You know I loves you too, Porgy.

[Ogilvy]

MO said:

That's just semantics! Fetus means baby. Even viable babies are aborted in the US.


A newborn or even a two year old can not survive without a mother. Should she decide if the child should live or die at that point? I would challenge you to find a cell biologist who would say that a "fetus" is not a human life.

If your Bible says "Thou shall not kill" you have a badly translated version. The commandment is "Thou shall not MURDER." There is a big difference! If you are against capital punishment I would advise you to not hit people over the head with the Bible. The Bible is full of pro-capital punishment positions.

That's just semantics! Murder means kill.

If your Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Murder" you have a badly translated version. The commandment is "Thou Shalt Not *Insert Word For Taking the Life of Another Human Being*. There is no difference! If you are against capital punishment then I suggest you hit people over the head with the Bible. The Bible is full of anti-capital punishment positions.

But while he slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But whne the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares.
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them

Matthew 13: 25-29

I do agree that the Bible says that abortion is wrong.

Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Matthew 18:14

In fact, the Bible says thou shalt not murder AND thou shalt not kill, in case you actually entertain the idea that the two are in any way different.

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.

So yes, both words are used...they both mean the same.

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and any other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mark 7:8-9

Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

[Walter]

"Murder" means the intentional killing of another human being.

Kill, the much broader term, means extinguishing the life, or potential life of a living, or potentially living thing.

One "kills" a tomato by eating it rather than permitting its seed to be nourished and flourish into new growth.

Ergo, there is a distinction between Murder and Kill, both biblically and logically.

[Ogilvy]

Walter said:

"Murder" means the intentional killing of another human being.

Kill, the much broader term, means extinguishing the life, or potential life of a living, or potentially living thing.

One "kills" a tomato by eating it rather than permitting its seed to be nourished and flourish into new growth.

Ergo, there is a distinction between Murder and Kill, both biblically and logically.

And yet, assuming that you are correct (which I am not entirely convinced of, but for the purpose of this argument, will assume), is not executing a criminal murder?

Doesn't the executioner intentionally kill the criminal? I think it is so.

In any case, it is clear to me that the taking of life, except in self-defense or to provide sustenance (the killing of animals), is wrong.

Conservatives say that abortion is wrong and that capital punishment is right.

Liberals say that abortion is right and that capital punishment is wrong.

As a moderate, I say that both are wrong. No life is intrinsically more important than the other.

[Walter]

Conservatives say that abortion is wrong and that capital punishment is right.

I'm sorry. I guess I missed something. Where can I find that requirement? I'm definitely conservative and am involved with conservative groups but we are unaware of a requirement that conservatives must think monolithically.

Perhaps you have chosen to selectively read my comments in this and other threads.

BTW, the counter is also true. I know several on the Left who support the death penalty and many more on the left (including many, if not most, Catholics) who oppose abortion.

How can a person who wants to be considered "moderate" engage in stereotype labelling with a clear conscience?

[Ogilvy]

Walter said:

I'm sorry. I guess I missed something. Where can I find that requirement? I'm definitely conservative and am involved with conservative groups but we are unaware of a requirement that conservatives must think monolithically.

Perhaps you have chosen to selectively read my comments in this and other threads.

BTW, the counter is also true. I know several on the Left who support the death penalty and many more on the left (including many, if not most, Catholics) who oppose abortion.

How can a person who wants to be considered "moderate" engage in stereotype labelling with a clear conscience?

Because it is true that most conservatives are against abortion and most liberals are for it. There are liberal beliefs and conservative beliefs. If there weren't, then there wouldn't be liberalism or conservatism, or at the very least one could not make any distinctions between the two.

Of course there are liberals who believe certain conservative things and conservatives who believe certain liberal things, but that does not make them balanced. That does not mean much. It means that perhaps they aren't believing everything on Fox News or Democraticunderground.com, but they still are far from balanced.

If you have far more conservative views than you have liberal views, then you are conservative. If you have far more liberal views than you have conservative views, then you are liberal. But if you only have a few more liberal views than conservative views or a few more conservative than liberal views, or if you have exactly the same number of conservative views as you have liberal views, then you are by my reckoning a moderate.

[Walter]

Ah. Thanks for the enlightenment.

According to the Ogilvy Standard, labels are mandatory before one can have an opinion.

Liberal, Conservative, Moderate.

Label first, logic and philosophy second.

Then I guess we're done talking. Clearly you feel that I cannot possibly be pro life and anti death penalty because you have deemed me to be a conservative...and that I am either duplicitous with you or disloyal to "conservatism."

Actually, I am an individual with ideas, philosophies and opinions that are MINE, not formed and dictated by some "higher authority."

And, unfortunately for you, most others on this forum are likewise free thinkers. IWNW and I, for example, feel differently on many issues, but I respect his position on issues as being his, not one directed by, say, the DNC talking points memos, and I believe he respects mine on the same basis.

It must be lonely for "Moderates" like you who cannot find an organization or person to direct your thinking as you would have us Liberals and Conservatives do.

[Walter]

Oh, by the way, as a "Conservative" I find the discussions on Fox News to be a bit more legitimate than the discussions on CNN; but I also find myself understanding and agreeing with thoughts and positions that are, by your requirements, to be "Liberal" regardless of the source.

[Ogilvy]

Walter said:

Ah. Thanks for the enlightenment.

According to the Ogilvy Standard, labels are mandatory before one can have an opinion.

Liberal, Conservative, Moderate.

Label first, logic and philosophy second.

Then I guess we're done talking. Clearly you feel that I cannot possibly be pro life and anti death penalty because you have deemed me to be a conservative...and that I am either duplicitous with you or disloyal to "conservatism."

Actually, I am an individual with ideas, philosophies and opinions that are MINE, not formed and dictated by some "higher authority."

And, unfortunately for you, most others on this forum are likewise free thinkers. IWNW and I, for example, feel differently on many issues, but I respect his position on issues as being his, not one directed by, say, the DNC talking points memos, and I believe he respects mine on the same basis.

It must be lonely for "Moderates" like you who cannot find an organization or person to direct your thinking as you would have us Liberals and Conservatives do.

You misunderstand what I am saying. I never said that a conservative can not be anti-death penalty. I did say that one must have more conservative beliefs than liberal beliefs to be conservative. If you say that you are conservative, then of course I assume that you have more conservative than liberal beliefs. This does not mean that you do not hold certain liberal values, merely that you hold significantly more conservative values than liberal ones.

Again, Walter, it seems you misunderstand me.

No, it's not lonely. I'm a highly introverted person, so I don't mind there not being many other people who share my views.