Exacution!

[LordKathen]

I am pleased.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...18130909990001

[Timber Loftis]

Lord K, you might want to link directly to abc news site, because the way you've got it, only aol members can sign in and view it.

But, I know what the article's about. I wonder if he'll be tried in other states still, or if it'll be a moot point now. Heck, we can try him in all those other states while he's rotting in jail awaiting execution. It'll keep him busy so he won't be appealing the hell outta this decision.

[LordKathen]

Ah. Did'nt realise, thanks Timber. Here ya go:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/24/sp...ial/index.html

[ 11-24-2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

[khazadman]

Virginia plans to expedite the appeals process so they can execute him. They're thinking that they will put him to sleep in about three years. That's much too long a wait if you ask me.

[LordKathen]

A waste of water, let alone the rest of the resourses it will take keep him alive for 3 years.

[Timber Loftis]

Hey, he is going to pay the only acceptable price for taking a life. Nothing is so valuable. To take it is to forfeit it, for only one priceless item can pay the debt of another.

However, let's not go too far down the road of hate and rejoice here, folks. We support the death penalty based on logic, not on emotion, else it has no meaning other that perverse pleasure.

[Yorick]

And in taking a life how is society different from the criminal?

I am PRO-LIFE.

How's this for an ideal: Make the concept of a human prematurely ending another humans life incomprehensible.

No death penalty, no abortion, no euthenasia, no murder, no war. No humans ending human life.

If it's going to start somewhere, it has to be from the top. The government should lead by example.

"It is wrong under ANY circumstance to end another humans life, so we will not either... no death penalty".

Therefore, we remove the vigillante, remove a certain scenario when a person takes the law into their own hands. The idea that somehow, they are justified in ending human life because there ARE cases where it is "o.k."

[ 11-24-2003, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[LordKathen]

Well, I wondered how long it would take to become a capital punishment debate. That was quick Yorick.

[Timber Loftis]

Oh, Lord K, don't blame Yorick -- I take responsibility for sending us there, albeit via inadvertant admonishment.

Yorick, I posted a very good counter-rebuttal to "two wrongs don't make a right" in GD, and I urge you seek it out.

But, here is the nub of it. It is wrong for me to imprison you in a place. It is wrong for me to take your money. However, these are perfectly acceptable punishments for the state to levy against you when you commit a crime. The state can fine you, and the state can imprison you.

The same is true with the death penalty. If the social contract makes it clear that an intentional killing (not in self-defense) is repairable/punishable by an equal sacrifice on your part (i.e. sacrificing your one equal priceless thing, your life) then there is nothing wrong with it. It is part of the social contract. Only a life may pay for a life. Accordingly, the state does not take your life, rather you take your life when you kill, as only your life can pay the price of what your crime "bought." The state merely enforces the social contract.

Sorry, but I do not foresee you overcoming this argument.

If we do not let emotion become involved (as my admonishment above indicates), then we realize that the D.P. is not "killing" by society, but rather society (with sadness) enforcing the social contract. Society may not like imprisoning you for life, but the rules say it must be done. Similarly, society may not like taking your life, but the decision was made by you when you "purchased" a life -- you knew the price.

I agree governments should "lead from the top." However, the paramount thing to do when leading from the top is showing that however sad the price may be, someone's willingness to incur the price must be accepted, else chaos results.

[Timber Loftis]

I want to point out that my theoretical underpinning for the D.P. is based on absolute knowledge of the crime. I hold that if you premeditated a killing, you are bound by the social contract, and rightfully subject to the D.P.

However, the current state of the D.P. in US states gives me pause. There is too much error for my tastes. Too many people are sent to the D.P. based on circumstantial evidence, in some cases, one or two testimonies (one of which is by the police) against the accused. Given the current rate of error in D.P. cases, I am adamantly against it as it currently exists. I don't know what the consensus of knowledge should be for the D.P., but I do feel that we should be at least 99.99% positive the guy commited the act. For me, any error in taking life via the D.P. should be at least one in ten thousand, and perhaps even more stringent. We should never, ever, ever take a life in the face of even miniscule uncertainty, for the ability to correct the social wrong is lost forever.