<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


Actually John D this is one area where I think I partially agree with you. Human Rights are an essantially social concept - they do not exist independant of humans in a society I mean. They are not, as far as I am concerned, a pre-determined condition. So in some ways they can't really be considered inalienable, but in my mind they are simply things that people should have the right to anyway. I think that people should have the right to life under all circumstances, however I do not consider that any kind of pre-set condition on society. I merely think it is the best way to run a society,and the only way I could run one morally. Basically, I can't think of any way in which I could justify killing another person. It won't make anything better and I don't think it is a judgement we are able to make. I understand though, as Talthyr said, that a lot of people don't agree with me on that.<hr></blockquote>

I agree that rights are a societal thing, and are not inalienable. That may piss off a lot of my American brothers & sisters. Our rights came about because the founders of our county said "these are the rights that the citzens of the United States of America will have".

I agree that everyone has a right to live. However I think they give that right up the moment they take that right from someone else. All those that are saying the death penalty is wrong should realize that the person who in sentenced to death killed someone. I just think that you give up your rights to life if you kill someone, other then self defense. I know that one death won't undo another but why give the killer more rights then the victim.

Just a note though. It doesn't matter in this case though because it won't count as a capital crime. I don't think they will seek the death penalty in this case.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John D Harris:


I agree that rights are a societal thing, and are not inalienable. That may piss off a lot of my American brothers & sisters. Our rights came about because the founders of our county said "these are the rights that the citzens of the United States of America will have".<hr></blockquote>

Much the same as you, I think that statement by our Founding Fathers was regarding what should/could be. Among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel:


Yeah, but don't you see that then you would be commiting the exact same wrong as she did, in fact, that would be done more intently.<hr></blockquote>


Maybe Capital Punishment is wrong, I don't deny it could be even though I believe in it for extreme circumstances, but even if she gets the death penalty, her death will not be more intentional than the man she allowed to die.

She, a qualified medical professional, allowed this man to bleed and die in her garage over a 3 day period, despite checking on him and apologizing for what she had done. She ate her meals, followed her routine, and even slept in her bed knowing a man was dying a horrific, yet preventable death mear yards/meters away. She won't have planned his death any less than her execution will be planned, but she did allow him to suffer for days while her death (if it happens) would be quick and painless.

A sociopath choosing a career working to care for the sick and infirm. How utterly, disgustingly ironic! Her capability to have performed future injustices is unimaginable.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by khazadman:
pardon my language but the bitch deserves to die the same way he did:slowly bleeding to death while her executioner comes out and talks with her and ignores HER pleas for help.<hr></blockquote>


The "friends" who helpped her ditch the body are not much better either.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Is it just me or does anyone else find the following phrase ironic:

Person X has complete disregard for human life, so we are going to kill them.

I am not quoting anyone here specifially, but it is an argument that I hear a lot in favour of capital punishment. It was mostly Cerek that brought it back to my mind. I am not bashing the viewpoint and I am definately not trying to flame, I just consider it a very comical statement in some lights.

Basically my view on capital punishment is that we are unable to judge for ourselves when someone deserves to die. I am a strong Christian and that believes me to think that God is the only one who can make decisions like that. I personally don't feel qualified to say if a person deserves death, no matter what they have done. Sorry.<hr></blockquote>

<font color="lime">Barry</font>,

I tried to Reply to this Saturday night, but my Response never got Posted (I think the forum was acting up a bit). I understand your disagreement and take no offense at your statements. Indeed, I respect anybody that can offer a dissenting view on such a controversial topic in such a straightforward manner without being disrespectful. Job well done.

I understand that my viewpoint appears contradictory on the surface, so I will try to explain it a little better.

If Person X has such a complete disregard for human life that they can kill Person Y in cold blood (or allow them to die, as in this case), then Person X represents a very real danger to society in general. Therefore, Person X should be permanently removed from society. Life imprisonment usually does NOT accomplish that, because there is ALWAYS a chance for parole or an appeal. In fact, it's common to hear of someone who has committed a particularly atrocious crime (like this one) being sentenced to Life + X-number of years. How can you keep somebody in prison for 15-20 years after they die? But judges have to do that to insure that a Life Imprisonment sentence actually comes close to being a true sentence. If they just sentence them to Life Imprisonment, then the criminal stands a good chance of getting out eventually.

One other thing to keep in mind is that these people are CRIMINALS!!! They aren't misunderstood or disenfranchised or victims of society. They are people who CHOOSE to break the laws established by our society. If you remove the punishment for committing crimes, then you remove any incentive for them to stop.

Ahhh, I think Barry defined well what I meant by that, let me expatiate on what I said earlier.
Rights are not inalienable in my view, they are brought by society, and is a good system to boot.
Imagine what the world would be like without humans, would a lion stop to think of the damage he was doing to the zebra population?? No, I mean, of course luckily we do have these rights, but if it weren't for society protecting said rights, they would not be in place/ adhered to.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:


<font color="lime">Barry</font>,

I tried to Reply to this Saturday night, but my Response never got Posted (I think the forum was acting up a bit). I understand your disagreement and take no offense at your statements. Indeed, I respect anybody that can offer a dissenting view on such a controversial topic in such a straightforward manner without being disrespectful. Job well done.

I understand that my viewpoint appears contradictory on the surface, so I will try to explain it a little better.

If Person X has such a complete disregard for human life that they can kill Person Y in cold blood (or allow them to die, as in this case), then Person X represents a very real danger to society in general. Therefore, Person X should be permanently removed from society. Life imprisonment usually does NOT accomplish that, because there is ALWAYS a chance for parole or an appeal. In fact, it's common to hear of someone who has committed a particularly atrocious crime (like this one) being sentenced to Life + X-number of years. How can you keep somebody in prison for 15-20 years after they die? But judges have to do that to insure that a Life Imprisonment sentence actually comes close to being a true sentence. If they just sentence them to Life Imprisonment, then the criminal stands a good chance of getting out eventually.

One other thing to keep in mind is that these people are CRIMINALS!!! They aren't misunderstood or disenfranchised or victims of society. They are people who CHOOSE to break the laws established by our society. If you remove the punishment for committing crimes, then you remove any incentive for them to stop.<hr></blockquote>

Well, first off - thanks! I try my best... [img]smile.gif[/img]

So your argument is a practical one - whilst it may be wrong to kill a person under any circumstances it is the lesser of two evils as she is dangerous alive. Well, in that case we would first need to be absolutely sure that there was no possible chance for redemption. If you are going to kill her on that justification then we need to be absolutely certain that she is dangerous and that if let her live she will kill again.

My problem is that there is always chance for redemption. There is always the possibility that out of an entire life of crime even, one day of "normalcy" might be squeezed. And we have lost the opportunity to find out, because we just kill her. You don't know why she did it, it might have been something she was going through at the time. That doesn't excuse it, but it does mean she is unlikely to do it again, so it blows the whole practicality argument out of the water. I like the idea in some respects Cerek, I just think it is still a little too risky for me.

And for your final point - I will try and remember they are criminals. You try and remember they are people.