I was listening to the talking heads on the morning news shows on Sunday and became very frustrated. As our elected officials continue to position on the issue of frozen embryos and whether or not the constitute life, they do nothing as states perform executions.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
You know, there's actually a good bit of difference between an embryo and someone on death row. I'm not going to argue about things, but I thought it'd be a good idea to point that out Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I agree with Boris, only the other way 'round. Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
There is no "other way 'round" to A is different from B.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
I have no interest in arguing either. My point is simply that life is life. We value life to the point that we are willing to condemn those who take it, but the state should not compound the evil, with Hammurabi-like "justice."
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Either way, it's kind of a victorium extremum. Not the best answer...
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Which is why, as a Catholic, I find it hard to support either political party. Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
"life is life"
I doubt you completely believe this. Are you willing to kill a living plant in order to live?
Probably. Because you value some life over other.
As is true for people that are pro-choice but anti-death penalty, as well as the people who are pro-life but pro-death penalty.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
I guess I should have written "human life is human life."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Portabello: There is no "other way 'round" to A is different from B.
Certainly there is, to wit, "B is different from A". But seriously, what I meant was that I use this difference to support abortion and oppose the death penalty, while I believe Boris does the opposite.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
"human life is human life."
Well, it's obvious that not everybody agrees with this.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
When President Bush said, "We will not support the taking of a human life in order to save other lives." I would have given all my cash and a Reeses Dark Chocolate Candy for just one reporter to have responded, "Then why did we invade Iraq?"
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I hear this argument a lot, and I still can't believe that it's so difficult for people to understand how I can believe that committing murder, in certain cases, is a forfeiture of your own right to life and that abortion, the taking of an innocent life, is wrong.
I also find it baffling that while you and I have the same religious views, KoM, we're exact opposites on both of these issues. Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
As far as I can recall, KoM's views are uniformly the opposite of what some people view as the "traditional" conservative/religions views.
edit: not that this indicates anything -- my personal views coincide to a great degree with the opposite.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
My solution to the Death penalty is limb removal. Eventually, there wont be any limbs left to cut off. If you commit murder enought times that you don't have any limbs, then I can see death as a punishment. It only makes sense, that if you are willing to lose limbs for murder, theres something not right in your head.
Abortion on the other hand, I'm prety neutral on. I say it's personal preference. If you believe it's wrong, don't get an abortion. If you are really serious about it, don't have any friends who have had abortions. I don't see a need to bring legalization in at all.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:It only makes sense, that if you are willing to lose limbs for murder, theres something not right in your head.
So then you get to lose your head? Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:I don't see a need to bring legalization in at all.
Of course you don't, since you don't thing it's a big deal.
But to those who believe that it is murder, there is a huge need to bring legalization into it.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
quote:So then you get to lose your head?
Not until we come up the old "Head in a Jar" trick. Good solution none the less, neh?
quote: But to those who believe that it is murder, there is a huge need to bring legalization into it.
Point taken.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
We legalize the hell out of how someone departs this life, once we decide that they are "someone."
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Legislation.
Legalization would be making abortion legal. Quite a different thing. Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:If you believe it's wrong, don't get an abortion. If you are really serious about it, don't have any friends who have had abortions.
How do you think that treating badly people who have had an abortion will do anything to appease those who are pro-life?
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
I there are many folks who object to having the state fund abortions with tax dollars from those who are morally opposed to abortion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I hear this argument a lot, and I still can't believe that it's so difficult for people to understand how I can believe that committing murder, in certain cases, is a forfeiture of your own right to life and that abortion, the taking of an innocent life, is wrong.
I feel exactly the same way, Eddie. I do not believe that we should treat human life as absolutely sacred, no matter what the circumstances. I believe that since everyone lives in a society, and benefits from society, there are certain things you are and aren't allowed to do, and if you are especially flagrant in your violation, you have surrendered your fate to your neighbors, if they decide to take it.
Of course, I believe I am also instructed by God to forgive and not to kill unless in self-defense, but I'm working on internalizing that.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
quote: How do you think that treating badly people who have had an abortion will do anything to appease those who are pro-life?
I didn't say to treat them badly. I was saying that if you are that bothered by abortion, you don't have to associate with people who don't have a problem with it. Thinking back on it though, I'm not sure why I said that. It really wouldn't solve much, would it?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Well, I think that refusing to be a friend to somebody because they made (what I consider to be) one bad choice would not be treating them well.
Not only would it do no good, it could actually do harm. When two sides of any issue manage to isolate themseves from interaction with the other side, it becomes too easy to view the other side as THEM, and not really people worthy of love and respect.
Heck, it happens too often even we aren't isolated. I have seen far too often on this site (which is far better than most) the baisic sentiment "You cannot be an intelligent, informed, and moral person if you [vote Bush, have an abortion, be for the death penalty, don't believe in God, believe in God, etc.]"
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
quote:Heck, it happens too often even we aren't isolated. I have seen far too often on this site (which is far better than most) the baisic sentiment "You cannot be an intelligent, informed, and moral person if you [vote Bush, have an abortion, be for the death penalty, don't believe in God, believe in God, etc.]"
That is very true. I hadn't really thought about it that way. I guess I'm a little ignorant on the subject. No experiences to support my ideas with. On one hand, I would never have a woman get an abortion for my child. On the other, I don't have a problem with other people doing it. Neutral is the only word I can think of, but leaning towards the liberal side.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I do see a difference between a murderer and a fetus, but I also oppose both abortion and the death penalty. Personally, I prefer the idea of a life sentence to hard labor.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
"Thou shalt not kill" has always meant the same thing. Without exception, the phrase "thou shalt not kill" has always had the silent qualifier "unless you really, really dislike the person."
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
No it hasn't.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:No it hasn't.
Ok, there have been some strict and true non-violence types. But they are a real rarity.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:No it hasn't
Then explain why we have the death penalty.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because the commandment is not, "Thou shalt not kill."
Because some people see a difference between a murderer and a fetus, when they believe the fetus is a human life. The fetus is to some people one step away from the infants you find in the maternity ward , of equal value, equally worthy of protection as that same infant. The murderer is a person who made choices and chose to terminate the life of another human being against their will, usually with brutal violence.
There is an extraordinary, obvious difference between the two. You may feel differently, but if you claim you do not understand it, you're being deliberately obtuse.,
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:Ok, there have been some strict and true non-violence types. But they are a real rarity.
Even for the many that are not strictly non-violent, personal dislike of a person is not a valid reason for killing, despite what you are implying.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Johnsonweed,
I also there are many folks who object to having the Federal Gummint fund unilaterally-declared wars with tax dollars from those who are morally opposed to war.
--Steve
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Exactly. You understand.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:No it hasn't
Then explain why we have the death penalty.
I don't think we can. This is something I have obsessed over for a while now, hence the frustration with the politicos that prompted the thread. It was one of the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II that made me pause because I had never thought about the inconsistency of of being morally opposed to abortion and not to the death penalty. If the commandment means anything (very strict interpretation) , then there is no justification for taking life. Even in the most extreme case one could argue that not even preserving your own life qualifies as an "exception." I suppose I sound like Michael Dukakis during the presidential debate, but I often wonder if I could overcome my innate desire to preserve my life and obey the commandment and enjoy eternal life.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I often wonder if I could overcome my innate desire to preserve my life and obey the commandment and enjoy eternal life.
Of course, many people disagree with you as to what that commandment means.
There are many, many examples in the Bible of good people killing.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I just had a wonderful discussion last night with a deeply religious Christian. While he could only (obviously) express his own personal views on the subject, I wonder just what percentage of "Culture of Life" types would support his statements?
He was all for our invasion of Iraq, to (in essence) "teach those Muslims for attacking us on our own soil". I gently reminded him that Hussein had nothing to do with it, and that the US was (according to the British journal "The Lancet") responsible for over 100,000 extra Iraqi civilian deaths from our unilaterally declared war, and that the original premise of the invasion (Weapons of Mass Destruction) turned out to be a total fabrication. He dismissed all that, and basically said that all Muslims are responsible for the acts of a few, and that it's OK to kill them (in droves, apparently) because "they attacked us first," just like in the era of the Crusades.
He also said that Muslims, as a whole, refuse to accept any personal responsibility for their actions, and then proceedd to blame Clinton (or was it Carter?) for promoting the whole "Let's drive a huge, unecessary SUV/HUMMER" mentality.
So, according to him, it's OK for me, as a non-Christian, to blame all Christians for the lunatic actions of a few. And you should all gleefully accept that responsibility.
Where's that "bangs head against the wall" smiley when I need it...?
There it is: Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I have always seen "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to include an unsaid thought, "Those Within Our Society."
If you add those words, there is not problem. In Old Testament times, those within society were those of the people chosen by God--other Jews. Cannanites, Philistines, Persians and the rest of the multitudes whom the Isrealites fought were all out of the society so were all killable.
Jesus Christ taught us to expand what we thought of as "Society". He taught to include those outside our tribe, our city and our country. He taught us to include even our enemies.
Today we have people who believe that you loose your place in society by killing others. Once you do that you are outside the law, or outlawed. You can and should be killed.
Other people include them in society since they include all humans.
Today we have people that exclude Americans and Isreali's because they fear them and claim they are heathen, and we have people that exclude Arab's and Muslims because they fear them and claim they are heathen.
Today we have people who exclude the poor, or the blacks, or the latinos because its economically easier to do so.
Today we have people who include the newly fertilized egg into society.
Today we have people who include all mammals, most fish, and a few reptiles into that society as well.
It all depends on how you define your society.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
quote:There are many, many examples in the Bible of good people killing.
LOL Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
johnsonweed:
I am opposed to the death penalty for the same reasons. I completely realize that most people who are in favor of the death penalty are conservative Christian types. And it probably seems crazy to them that there are people out there who are "into" the sacredness of all human life because of the same scriptures they use to justify the taking of it.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" did not neccessarily mean "a life for a life"; that phrase is so often misinterpreted (most famously in the Satanic Bible) as meaning that the punishment of any wrong deed should be equal to the deed. In fact, what it means is that the punishment should NEVER exceed the crime that was committed.
Sorry, but *revenge* is not justice.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dan: Well, looking at it through that paradigm (which I don't accept, but that's a different post), then the reason for the death penalty is that we exclude murderers from our society.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
JW -- I fail to see what you find funny. Do you disagree about what I said you can find in the Bible?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dan: It would appear that the people of the Old Testament were commanded *to* kill not just Philistines and whatnot, but also those in their own society who broke a myriad of commandments. I guess you could say that according to their laws, once you broke a serious commandment, you were no longer considered part of the society.
But seriously, there was a *whole* lot of God-condoned killing going on for a people commanded not to kill. So I don't see how applying it to the death sentance makes any sense whatsoever.
The Jews of the Old Testament were killing people for far more than just murder.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I don't think the actions of people in the Bible should be used to justify the actions of our society. People killed people in the Bible? What does that have to do with us?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
TL, it all depends on what you believe about the Bible and how it applies to us today. This is a highly personal, individual thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Foust brought up Biblical justifications for killing by talking about the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." I was responding to it.
quote:People killed people in the Bible? What does that have to do with us?
I didn't say it did. But it does have a lot to do with the Biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Capital punishment is not necessarily revenge.
Edit:
quote:And it probably seems crazy to them that there are people out there who are "into" the sacredness of all human life because of the same scriptures they use to justify the taking of it.
Also, the Bible does not necessarily teach that all life is sacred in the way you're implying.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:there was a *whole* lot of God-condoned killing going on for a people commanded not to kill
Bev, if you were saying this about a religion other than your own, how would that make you feel? If the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Quakers were doing all the killing (well, maybe not the Quakers...), or some characters from an Ursula K. LeGuin novel...What would you have to say about the validity of their beliefs, or their justifications for their actions?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I have always seen "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to include an unsaid thought, "Those Within Our Society." If you add those words, there is not problem.
And I have always seen "Thou Shalt Not Covet They Neighbor's Wife" to include the unsaid thought, "Unless she's really, really hot." If you add those words, there is not a problem.
I have always seen "Thou Shalt Not Steal" to include the unsaid thought, "Unless you can get away with it." If you add those words, there is not a problem.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
sswak -- those were Jews doing that killing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and by the way: this whole "unless..." stuff is stupid and a straw-man. The Commandments don't say "Thou shalt not...unless you can get away with it", that is simply how some very poor-quality Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) behave in everyday life.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I have always seen "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to include an unsaid thought, "Those Within Our Society."
Just because you've seen it doesn't mean it was there.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
TL, why do you get that message from those commandments? My thought is thou shalt not... especially when it is most tempting.
Sswak, I have wondered to myself at the amount of killing that goes on in the Old Testament. I honestly don't understand it myself. But I do wonder how much of it really was God-condoned.
I was making the point in order to argue someone saying that because the Bible contains the commandment "thou shalt not kill", we should never kill under any circumstances. I was pointing out that in the very society in which this commandment was given, there was a lot of apparently God-condoned killing going on--thus making the above a poor argument.
I try to follow the LDS codes for when we should and should not kill. Those are found heavily in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. They don't appear to be the same as what is found in the Old Testament. I don't know why.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Exactly! I mean, I didn't realize that we were allowed to just arbitrarily ADJUST the commandments of God to fit our own views. I wish I had known!
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Beverly, I was using sarcasm to point out the ridiculousness of another post.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
OK--I guess it passed way under my radar.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: JW -- I fail to see what you find funny. Do you disagree about what I said you can find in the Bible?
Sorry, no offence intended. It was the phrasing that simply sounded funny to me. I don't disagree with you at all.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Bev,
Every group has it's fair share of God-Condoned killing, even the Mormons (though, of course, they pale before the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims), and all groups have their Holy Books both decrying and condoning killings of various sorts.
It all points to the original premise of this thread: "Topic: How can we have a culture of life and still have the death penalty?"
As I read it: these claims of US "Culture of Life" is just a lot of BS. We, apparently, stand for whatever the hell it is we want to stand for at any given moment of time, and we are always right.
And again, I voted for an entirely different country.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
One tiny correction -- Mormons are Christians.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Bev, I believe the reason why LDS codes for when we should and should not kill differ from those in the Old Testament is because (this is how it was explained to me) God gives different commandments for different people, and different generations. As the world is constantly changing, the circumstances of society change. When those circumstances change, we need different directives from God.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: One tiny correction -- Mormons are Christians.
Thanks, I saw that and was very confused. I had a LDS roommate in college that spent a lot of time explaining this to me (I'm Roman Catholic).
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:As I read it: these claims of US "Culture of Life" is just a lot of BS. We, apparently, stand for whatever the hell it is we want to stand for at any given moment of time, and we are always right.
Ssywak, are you not included in this group then? What is wrong with standing by what you believe? So other people disagree with you. So other people think you are evil. So we can't all agree on what is moral and what isn't. That doesn't mean we give up our view of morality because someone else thinks it is wrong.
Edit: Or maybe I have my head in the sand, because I have no idea what this "Culture of Life" that everyone keeps mentioning refers to. Is it something Bush said?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I was using sarcasm to point out the ridiculousness of another post.
TL -- the problem was that your posts didn't seem any more extreme than those that were made seriously.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ahh, more clarification on my hypothesis is needed.
1) This is my opinion. It is backed by non-professional research and is not written in stone. Feel free to disagree with me. I won't be upset.
2) This is not just about the "Thou Shall Not Kill" commandment. This same addendum can be attached to all the commandments for a more accurate view of history. Not for a moral compass, but for an accurate view of how its been used in history.
History is filled with soldiers and sailors traveling the world seducing, sleeping with or just raping non-believers and folks outside the tribe. They were not members of society and as such some people did not consider it adultery. Nor were marriages made to members outside society considered valid.
Similarly you can loot the town of the heathen you attack. Its not theft.
3) While this is just my opinion, remember that these commandments were created to define a lawful society. (whether created by God or by members of the society is a religious debate I will not delve into now.) Those who uphold them are members of that society. Those who do not are not members of that society.
How to treat members outside that society was debated for centuries by the Old Testament scholars, prophets, and Judges. Jesus Christ gave a fairly clear answer. Your society is everyone, even your enemies.
4) While many of my comments were based on biblical commandments, this seems to be a fairly universal, socialogical argument. The ancient Greeks or Celts or Chinese had the same duality of law, for those within society and for those outside of it.
The most intrigueing Icelandic Saga's are about the laws their members follow, and the chaos that results when they break those laws and are "Outlawed".
It used to be legal to kill anyone "Outlaw" in any way you wanted.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
2) This comes across very different from what you said earlier. I have no problem with you saying that people tend to not live up to their own ideals. My problem was when it appeared that you were saying that you knew what our ideals really are.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:How to treat members outside that society was debated for centuries by the Old Testament scholars, prophets, and Judges. Jesus Christ gave a fairly clear answer. Your society is everyone, even your enemies.
I like that. I want to live by that. I am sad that so many people in history have not.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
quote: Edit: Or maybe I have my head in the sand, because I have no idea what this "Culture of Life" that everyone keeps mentioning refers to. Is it something Bush said?
Yes, it is a "Bushism" that has been picked up by most of the Republican party (actually, I don't know who used it first). The term even appeared in a question today during the President's press conference.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I guess, then, to him and all those who use it, the term refers to protecting innocent life. The death penalty and war are more about removing threats to society.
Not that that is necessarily my personal view. I am ambivalent about the death penalty and the war. And Bush. And Republicans. Democrats too. I'm just ambivalent about most things. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Exactly! I mean, I didn't realize that we were allowed to just arbitrarily ADJUST the commandments of God to fit our own views. I wish I had known!
Ha!
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
In point of fact, the Torah states, "Thou shalt not murder."
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
That make no diference. Murder is the name we give to killing when we wish no part of it. From my point of view, all killing is murder.
quote: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Mahatma Ghandi.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:From my point of view, all killing is murder.
Really? So if I kill someone in self-defense, you would consider that murder? I just don't understand that. Should I allow myself to be killed?
Also, Ghandi, like so many others, did not know the original interpretation of that quote (or perhaps he was just speaking to the common misinterpretation). It is not about vengeance, it's about temperance. The message is that the punishment should fit the crime - not a life for an eye nor a fine for an eye.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That make no diference. Murder is the name we give to killing when we wish no part of it. From my point of view, all killing is murder.
Well, your point of view is wrong. Murder is the name we give killing when it is not justified by self-defense, and some people would place warfare under that category as well. If the life of my loved ones, an innocent, or myself is threatened, and I take the life of the threatener to prevent it, and I could not have prevented it otherwise, I am not a murderer.
If you say I am, you've put yourself so high in an ivory tower I wonder that you even bother trying to see people in the real world.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
quote:Well, your point of view is wrong.
I wouldn't have chosen that wording, were I you.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Also, Ghandi, like so many others, did not know the original interpretation of that quote (or perhaps he was just speaking to the common misinterpretation). It is not about vengeance, it's about temperance. The message is that the punishment should fit the crime - not a life for an eye nor a fine for an eye.
I don't see how this original interpretation makes the saying any better.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
And Rakeesh, then you agree that the death penalty is murder.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It was chosen deliberately in response to a similar meaning from him. And I really do believe it:)
And yes, Jebus, I believe the death penalty is murder. I believe someone can do something so foul that they have forfeited their right to life, and thus deserve to be murdered.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Why?
Sure, they need to be removed from society, but what is the benifit of killing them over a life-time in prison?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Some people believe that society is no longer obligated to expend resources and put guards at risk for the span of their natural lives.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
$$ (answer to Jebus question)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Not only putting guards at risk -- but causing them to spend their careers dealing with murderers.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I've heard that in fact, due to all the repeals available, the death penalty actually costs more then life-imprisonment.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Not only putting guards at risk -- but causing them to spend their careers dealing with murderers.
Because prison security guards won't be dealing with people like this anyway?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What are you asking?
Will they be dealing with dead people? No.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I'm saying instead of the murderers, they'll be dealing with criminals who are likely just as dangerous.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Jebus -- if people are executed, then there aren't as many people in the prisons, and there won't be as many guards necessary.
Also, your statement that a non-murderer is likely "just as dangerous" as murderer is highly suspect.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of course, there's still the question as to which causes more damage -- dealing with murderers day in and day our, or killing said murderer. I don't know what I think about that.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Not all non-murderers obviously. But I iamgine there are plenty in prison who are just as dangerous as muderers even they were never convicted of it.
Oh and as to the cost, this website claims that "NY - The estimated costs for New York’s death penalty, which was reinstated in 1995: $160 million, or approximately $23 million for each person sentenced to death, with no executions likely for many years. (The Times Union, Sept. 22, 2003)"
Not every murderer gets the chair (or the injection, or the...). Guards will still have to deal with murderers.
Of more interest though, Jebus, can you find any proof of that (it's an interesting thought)?
Edit: Damn you're quick. A little too quick...
Edit 2: I'm just really slow, apparently.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Portabello:
quote:Ok, there have been some strict and true non-violence types. But they are a real rarity.
Even for the many that are not strictly non-violent, personal dislike of a person is not a valid reason for killing, despite what you are implying.
I meant to keep my statement general. Read this thread through, and you'll find a wide range of exceptions to "thou shalt not kill." Ranging from translation issues - kill vs. murder - to the responsibility of the state. All of these reasons only apply to people you don't like.
Except for the extreme pacifists, we all of us can come up with a reason to kill someone.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:All of these reasons only apply to people you don't like.
No they don't.
quote:Except for the extreme pacifists, we all of us can come up with a reason to kill someone.
On this I completely agree.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
And, and about the kill/murder translation debate - it's actually a moot point. Whichever translation is appropriate, there is still not definition of "murder," and it still comes down to "thou shalt not murder someone, unless you think you have really good reason to."
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)