are you in for or against the death penalty

[russtafa]

no matter if crime is so evil are you against the death penalty no matter what? are you for the death penalty with reservations ?

[hippifried]

Some people just need killing.
I have reservations anout its gratuitous use. That can get out of hand in a hurry, & the state really needs to be sure about who they're killing & why. But my biggest reservation is the method of execution. I'm a proponant of death by dissection. I see no reason to destroy the transplantable body parts by poisoning or cooking in place with electricity. Hanging or beheading would work better, but it would still be a big hurry-up at the harvest. Not personally giving a shit about anybody else's "eeewwww" factor, I say just strap 'em down on a table & start cutting. Non-vitals first, including stuff like corneas, skin, etc... When you get to the heart, lungs, liver, & whatnot, then get in a hurry.

[trish]

Good point; I think I can be persuaded to endorse death by dissection. Utility and "just desserts" are supporting reasons that come to mind.

My main issue with the death penalty is with what counts in law as standards of sufficient proof. Chief Wiggam said, "I'd rather a dozen guilty men go free than get up and chase them." Well that doesn't exactly express my concern, but you get the idea. Way too many people who have been locked up for years are now being released based on modern DNA forensics. Judges and juries, even those with the best intentions, all too often have not seen reasonable doubt in cases where doubt should have existed. By and large the general populace is poorly educated in the standards of proof. Just look at what passes for proof in the arguments of some who post on these boards. Do you want dozen russtafas making life and death decisions? I don't.

Whereas I have nothing per se against the death penalty and I agree with Hippiefried that there are some people who need killing, I also think it's extremely difficult to decide who needs killing.

Here's a side issue for crimes less serious than treason or murder. In the fairly recent past, a century or two in U.S. military history, flogging was an acceptable penalty for breaching orders. It seems to me far preferable to a long duration in the clink. What exactly is the source of our modern abhorrence with this and similar practices? Anyone? If freedom is the thing we value the most, why are we so quick to take it away for the most minor infractions (like three strikes on marijuana possession)?

[Stavros]

If freedom is the thing we value the most, why are we so quick to take it away for the most minor infractions

Does that mean you value freedom over life? You condemn the murder of one person by another person, but support murder if it is being done by your state. If killing people is wrong, it is always wrong, because killing is irreversible and not comparable to robbery, deception or other crimes.

And if it was a simple matter, you would not hesitate to send all convicted murderers to their death. However, when you have a case where a woman, say, murders her husband after years of abuse you decide to grade murder in the way you grade football or basketball teams, and say -well for this murder we give life imprisonment rather than death, even though the act ended another life. Some people argue peadophiles who murder their victims should go; others that murdering a police officer should mean death, and so on -why, as soon as they can, do people start amending the punishment? To suit their moral anxiety?

Judicial reasoning used to argue that capital punishment was a deterrent; that it was a just punishment to fit the crime. Unfortunately, when families of the victims are allowed to speak, in some cases they do not want justice, but revenge.

When six men were arrested in Birmingham in 1975 following the bombing of two pubs in which 21 people died and 162 were injured, it was, in effect, revenge on the city's Irish community -the men, all of whom were Irish and found guilty and sentenced to life, were innocent -would all six have been executed in the mood of the UK at that time? Probably, even though the police force knew they were innocent. That is not justice, that is revenge.

The UK is officially a Christian state, and it is a fundamendal tenet of the faith that Jesus died on the Cross to expiate the sins of humankind -with the message: let this death be the last violent act of one man against another; and this, in part, has been fundamental to the belief that capital punishment is inhumane as a form of punishment. The judgement of a murder, after all, is not about the victim or the perpetrator, but you, as a person, as that part of society being called upon to choose between life and death. Faced with the reality of death, choose life.

[russtafa]

maybe exile to an island is the answer then there is no blood on the hands

[trish]

If killing people is wrong, it is always wrong.True enough, if in the premise the phrase "killing people is wrong" is interpreted as meaning "killing people is always wrong." But that interpretation just reduces the claim to a tautology. I can't disagree with a tautology. But, "if killing some people sometimes is right, then it's not always wrong to kill people," is also a tautology and it would be silly not to agree with it. Consequently we depart at the premise. Of course the theological argument doesn't really work because there are no gods. The twist that judgements of others are self judgments and therefore we all need to choose life over death needs to be fleshed out more before I buy into it. It's pretty unclear. But our disagreement is theoretical. In practice I don't believe human standards of proof are up to what would be required of the death penalty; the finality of the "proof" doesn't equate with the finality of the penalty. Perhaps only in pure, non-applied mathematics (and certainly therefore not in jurisprudence) is proof of such finality possible.

[zocco]

the death penalty should never be used anywhere
it is just state sanctioned murder
to many have been executed or on death row only to be found to be innocent

[russtafa]

IN Australia it cost a lot of money to keep some one in prison and these prisons keep filling up,so there have to be more prisons built

[trish]

What's the point of building prisons in a penal colony?




Just joking :)

[zocco]

well for one i am prepared to keep paying
maybe we need to be looking at why so many are needing to be locked up not just long term but short term as well

[zocco]

What's the point of building prisons in a penal colony?




Just joking :)


our family tree has been checked on both sides can't find a convict anywhere

Damn i wanted some claim to fame :dancing::dancing::dancing:

[trish]

well for one i am prepared to keep paying
maybe we need to be looking at why so many are needing to be locked up not just long term but short term as wellOr if they're even "needing" to be locked up at all. There are other penalties a State could impose other than confiscating someone's freedom, which is an expensive thing to do. Fines, service, etc.

[zocco]

their are to many now with mental illnisses etc being locked up in prisons now
what is happening with them when they are let out?

just my opinion but our whole judicial system needs to be looked at and refreshed totally

but then of course for more who wants to pay for everything

[Prospero]

I opened this thread with trepidation - fearing to find lots baying for blood. I am pleased to see our community, thus far, tilts largely against state sanctioned murder.

[runningdownthatdream]

maybe exile to an island is the answer then there is no blood on the hands

You and the ironic statements again..............................

Look at what happened in Australia - Britain sent the convicts there and those convicts turned around and perpetrated their criminal acts on others less able to defend themseves. I like Carlin's solution though:

‪4 Groups that Gotta Go - George Carlin‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw)

[Faldur]

I opened this thread with trepidation - fearing to find lots baying for blood. I am pleased to see our community, thus far, tilts largely against state sanctioned murder.

Looks pretty evenly split, 2 against, 1 undecided, 2 for. Tough decision to make, but I believe there are beasts in our society that are deserved. As an example someone that tortures, rapes and kills an innocent. If you have overwhelming evidence, I side with death.

[Erika1487]

Ohio still has the Death penalty. I support it.

[russtafa]

just lock criminals away and leave them to do what they will with each other

[robertlouis]

I'm opposed to the death penalty on three grounds.

- the risk of putting any innocent person to death is simply not acceptable, far too many sad examples over the years.

- any country which professes to be Christian or to uphold Christian values should not revert to the Old Testament stance of "an eye for an eye". That is revenge, not justice.

- I find the concept of judicial murder every bit as repulsive as the crime of murder itself.

[Yvonne183]

no matter if crime is so evil are you against the death penalty no matter what? are you for the death penalty with reservations ?

I am for the death penalty on reservations.

I am torn on this issue. I can understand what Robert says about putting to death an innocent person but on the other hand there are so many evil, very evil people that,, well,, need to be killed. I think of some of the abusers I ran into as a young person and I do have evil thoughts of wanting them dead. Whether I could really see that happen, I probably couldn't,,, I get upset when I see a dead animal run over by a car.

[robertlouis]

I am for the death penalty on reservations.



So you don't like native americans much, Yvonne? ;)

Seriously, I can't agree with your statement that people, evil though they may be, "need to be killed". For what purpose? If they're locked away for life and the public is protected, what additional measurable benefit does society actually gain by strangling, frying or gassing them? And yes, I am picking on the most violent and gruesome methods to make a point.

[SammiValentine]

So you don't like native americans much, Yvonne? ;)

she meant grey squirrels!

keep squirrels red!

[robertlouis]

she meant grey squirrels!

keep squirrels red!

I've searched, but I can't find a pic of a squirrel in a Liverpool shirt, sorry. :)

This'll have to do.....

[SammiValentine]

get down to formby la !

[trish]

I'm opposed to the death penalty on three grounds.

- the risk of putting any innocent person to death is simply not acceptable, far too many sad examples over the years.

- any country which professes to be Christian or to uphold Christian values should not revert to the Old Testament stance of "an eye for an eye". That is revenge, not justice.

- I find the concept of judicial murder every bit as repulsive as the crime of murder itself.

I too oppose the death penalty. The first of Robert's reasons is sufficient.

The second argument does seem to establish reasonable expectations from "Christian" nations that claim consistency with the principles of Christianity. The U.S. (my home) is, however, not a Christian nation and so the argument doesn't really apply.

Arguments likening the death penalty to revenge I find pretty weak, on the grounds that "justice" IS in fact sometimes "revenge." "Justice" derives from "to make even." When you justify your margins you're evening them out so that you can lay a ruler along them and touch each line of print. Just laws are laws that promote equality and level the playing fields. When those laws are broken the balance is disturbed. The aim of just jurisprudence is to restore balance, as much as is possible.

There is no absolute evil, no sin and no divine or metaphysically moral imperative that says this person needs to be killed. Nor is there any such imperative that stipulates killing is wrong. In this universe, on this planet humans do all the stipulating. The need to impose penalties comes from the need to restore balance to broken lives. Only we can know what actions will most closely approximate such a restoration. The argument that there is no absolute need to kill a murderers is no more or less valid than the argument that it is absolutely wrong to kill a murderer. The argument that there is no purpose to killing a murderer ignores the purpose of justice__to even things out. The argument that there is a purpose to killing a murderer, presumes that that purpose is a sufficient cause for right action. None of these arguments really help decide the question.

But luckily, we only need one argument that works. The finality of death penalty requires certitude of guilt, which we almost never have.

[russtafa]

murder goes against Christian teachings so it is wrong to take a killers life

[hippifried]

Jesus was executed for sedition. But regardless, I have a problem taking seriously, righteous indignation about state execution by a nation who claims their "moral authority" from human sacrifice. :)

I don't like the idea of vengeance (or as it's so euphemistically stated these days, "justice for the victim") as a primary reason for execution. But there are people who go out of their way to forfeit any claim to be thought of as people. They're not worth the trouble or danger to keep them alive.
To repeat: "Some people just need killing."

[Stavros]

any country which professes to be Christian or to uphold Christian values should not revert to the Old Testament stance of "an eye for an eye". That is revenge, not justice

The concept of 'an for an eye' was not meant as a literal act, but proportionality, to 'balance' out a crime -if A steals a goat from B, he should either get his goat back, or another goat. This works fine until murder is committed -there is a long and complex tradition of 'blood revenge' among the Bedouin of Arabia, who realised a long time ago that if someone from Tribe a kills someone from Tribe B in revenge for a former killing, and if this killing is not considered just by Tribe B, an endless cycle of 'revenge' killings would then ensure and, theoretically or actually leave noone left apart from some innocent children and their grandparents. So qualifying acts were then introduced -contrition and remorse on the part of the perpetrator, the award of precious belongings from the murderer's tribe to the victim -in an age and economy where giving up these things would be a genuine loss- and so on. Unfortunately, in the modern age, a rise in population and particularly gun ownership has meant that 'blood revenge' in Upper Egypt, Iraq and Syria is probably beyond the strict -and accepted- morals that were practised by the 'noble' Bedu of yore.

More pertinent, is that taking another life causes great trauma -most serving soldiers will tell you this, very few ever relish killing another person, and those that do are usually considered a bit unhinged by their comrades.

The burden of proof in murder trials is of critical importance -it may be that OJ Simpson did murder his wife and her boyfriend, but the evidence presented in court did not satisfy the jury; by contrast, African Americans accused of murder tend to be found guilty on the evidence even when it may be one item -of clothing, of a sighting by a witness, and so on.

Trish, I asked you if you think Freedom is more important than Life...the difference between Justice and Revenge is that one is considered to be a balanced assessment of disputed claims, often by a disinterested third party, where revenge is retaliation and usually considered an emotional, even an irrational act -as when someone takes revenge on another without first confirming that the victim was responsible- and therefore, Justice and Revenge are wholly different.

[russtafa]

All the major religions of the world are against the death penalty

[Yvonne183]

I am just curious then. If a man was to enter your home and he killed your family and was standing in front of you, would you not want to kill him? Or would you just rush to the nearest phone and call the police?

How about if your country was being attacked, would you not kill the invading people's? Let's say the attacking soldiers stopped their attack, would you hope for the police to arrest them and bring them to justice and given life sentences or would you kill them before they did any more damage?

What I was saying is that there will be times when one will have to kill someone whether it be on a personal level, being a soldier or being the state. I am sorry but if Hitler was to have not killed himself he should have been executed.
I am not a christian so I don't care what the bible says.

Whether execution is a deterrent or not is nothing I care about. I do believe in vengeance and anyone that does real evil should be put to death. No other opinion can sway me.

Every country of the world puts people to death, even the UK is murdering Libyans as I type this, the Libyans are not even getting a trial, they are just being murdered from the skies. Even if the Libyans were doing really evil things, according to death penalty opponents they should not be murdered for their evil.

[Stavros]

The estimated cost per year for a lifer in the UK is around £40,000 whereas for the same year, 2008 in the US the maximum for someone 'closely guarded' was $32, 547; I think in Australia in the late 80s it was $A40,000. Not sure how these are worked out, presumably its not just the individual cost of food, but a computation of the total cost of the prison divided by one life sentence. In addition the length of stay varies from one state to another in Australia and the US, as well as different countries. Another difference in cost is whether or not the prisoner has special needs -those on whole life tariffs need medical care when they get older, may have special dietary needs, and so on. I read somewhere the US as a whole spends more on prisons than it does on education (excluding privately-funded universities and presumably schools).

[Stavros]

Yvonne the thread is about punishment, not the crime. You can think of any number of truly gruesome situations, and situations in which people react as events happen, murder as a form of self-defence is different from a pre-meditated, planned event but the end result, someone dies, is what generates the trial, and as I suggested earlier, it is because circumstances now matter that there are different grades of murder -in the case of war, because Christians ought to be pacificists, there was a prohibition on warfare until St Augustine came up with the concept/excuse of a 'Just War'....the issue facing soldiers tends to be moral as legally most states and some -but not all -international law allows soldiers to kill with impunity- I think this is a different thread; it is the response to the crime that this thread is concerned with.

[russtafa]

it costs 79 thousand a year to keep someone in prison

[Prospero]

I'm opposed to the death penalty on three grounds.

- the risk of putting any innocent person to death is simply not acceptable, far too many sad examples over the years.

- any country which professes to be Christian or to uphold Christian values should not revert to the Old Testament stance of "an eye for an eye". That is revenge, not justice.

- I find the concept of judicial murder every bit as repulsive as the crime of murder itself.

Robert said it eloquently. I fully endorse this.

[Faldur]

Robert said it eloquently. I fully endorse this.

Well I would disagree with anyone who says capitol punishment is not a Christian value. You can find as many quotes and verses supporting it as opposing.

Ref:
Mat. 15:3-4
Mark 7:8-11
Rev. 13:10
1 Tim. 1:8-9
Rom. 13:4
Rev. 16:5-6
Rev. 11:5
Rev. 13:10

To me it comes down to the level of proof. The bar has to be set so high before the decision is made to take someones life.

[trish]

The concept of 'an for an eye' was not meant as a literal act, but proportionality, to 'balance' out a crimeOne has to keep in mind that this "law" was written by a society that stoned women for adultery. Although "an eye for an eye" could be and was extended metaphorically it could be and was also taken literally by the justice givers of the time.

Any sort of retribution (from vandalism to murder) carried out by individuals, families, tribes and clans can lead to an "endless cycle" of escalating crimes. This is not an argument against capital punishment but merely an argument that the punishments need to be decided by and carried out by a body to whom all parties have ceded jurisdiction.


Trish, I asked you if you think Freedom is more important than Life... I'm not sure where you're going with this. If a murderer values his life more than his freedom, then imprisonment falls short of restoring the balance. If the murderer values freedom more than life, then imprisonment goes too far. Imprisonment restores balance only if the murder[er] values his life and his freedom equally. Life for a life seems to work better, if balance is were the only concern.


the difference between Justice and Revenge is that one is considered to be a balanced assessment of disputed claims, often by a disinterested third party, where revenge is retaliation and usually considered an emotional, even an irrational act -as when someone takes revenge on another without first confirming that the victim was responsible-I noticed you use the word "usually" here (italics are mine). I used a similar[] qualification when claiming justice is sometimes revenge. The main concern of both is to re-establish a balance, to make things even in so far as it is possible. In my mind the difference between the two, when there is a difference, is whether or not the attempted balancing act is done by a body to whom most (hopefully all) of the involved parties have ceded jurisdiction.

Others have used the phrase, "state sanctioned murder" to argue against capital punishment. This is an example of question begging. It is an attempt to define capital punishment as murder without providing any argument for why anyone should accept such a definition.


More pertinent, is that taking another life causes great traumaI think I will grant this argument. The larger point, I assume, being that capital punishment brutalizes society. I think this is probably right (though I've seen no research on it) and insofar as brutalization is undesirable, the argument seems to work. (Of course we want to be very careful here. Are first shooter video games less brutalizing to society as a whole than the sanction of capital punishment?)


The burden of proof in murder trials is of critical importanceAnd of course we've agreed on this one from the beginning of the thread.

As I said before, a theorem requires only one proof. Just because I object to some arguments against capital punishment, it doesn't follow that I'm for capital punishment. For me, any one of these last two are sufficient to bar the practice.

[trish]

Matthew 15:3-10 is what my mom would call a doosey. Capital punishment for not honoring your parents. It seems to me some ancient king, fearful of being usurped by his sons, had his scribes put that one in the mouth of God. And in Matthew 15:3-4 we have Jesus sanctimoniously calling the Pharisees hypocrites for not following this ancient (even by Christ's standards) commandment. Jesus by the way preached the Golden Rule, turn the other cheek etc. etc. So who's the hypocrite? So much for the Biblical argument for or against.

P.S. But here's another interpretation that saves Christ's reputation. The Pharisees were generally unaccepting of Christ's teachings, saying they followed the written word of God, which at the time was the Old Testament. Far from endorsing capital punishment for not honoring your parents, Jesus was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who claimed to subscribe to the Old Testament and at the same time ignored this particular commandment. I'm not a bible scholar (nor do I care to be) so perhaps someone else can say whether this interpretation holds water.

I don't have the time or the inclination to dispense with all of Faldur's biblical references. But if any one of them indisputably condones capital punishment then it throws the entire New Testament into disrepute by introducing a contradiction to the passages where it very clearly prescribes against killing and violence. On the other hand, if all of them are disputable, then they're all ... disputable.

[russtafa]

so what is to be done with repeat violent offenders? i am all for putting them out the middle of nowhere and leaving them there and in Australia we have a lot of the middle of nowhere

[trish]

Do what the Church does to repeat offeders, have them confess their sins, mumble some incantation and absolve them.

[Faldur]

I don't have the time or the inclination to dispense with all of Faldur's biblical references... Trish, Lets get one thing perfectly clear.. You can find as many quotes and verses supporting it as opposing.. Faldur, I think my statement spoke for itself, I did not say the bible supported the death penalty, I stated you can find as many supporting arguments as opposing. When Jesus stated in Rev 13:10, "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.", I think you can consider this as a supporting statement.

To make a hand-waving statement "The Golden Rule!", (or another on the hit parade is "the greatest commandment" in Mathew), is a display of ignorance of who Jesus was. I encourage you to read about Jesus's involvement in battle of Jericho.

I disagree that religion belongs anywhere in the debate of "Caesar's laws". It is a choice if you make it a moral guide in your decision process. But at the end of the day its man's decision to make, yes or no.

[russtafa]

:praying:wow that will work lol.i'll go and rob a bank and then go to church and then do the same thing next week. we need you in Australia Trish to make the laws ,every con in the land would vote for you

[Faldur]

Do what the Church does to repeat offeders, have them confess their sins, mumble some incantation and absolve them.

I thought they made them Pope?

[trish]

I don't have the time or the inclination to dispense with all of Faldur's biblical references... Trish, Lets get one thing perfectly clear.. You can find as many quotes and verses supporting it as opposing.. Faldur, I think my statement spoke for itself, I did not say the bible supported the death penalty, I stated you can find as many supporting arguments as opposing. When Jesus stated in Rev 13:10, "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.", I think you can consider this as a supporting statement.

To make a hand-waving statement "The Golden Rule!", (or another on the hit parade is "the greatest commandment" in Mathew), is a display of ignorance of who Jesus was. I encourage you to read about Jesus's involvement in battle of Jericho.

I disagree that religion belongs anywhere in the debate of "Caesar's laws". It is a choice if you make it a moral guide in your decision process. But at the end of the day its man's decision to make, yes or no.I thought Joshua "fit" the battle of Jericho __ Jericho...in 1400 BCE.

[Faldur]

I thought Joshua "fit" the battle of Jericho __ Jericho...in 1400 BCE.

I believe you have that about right. The passages to look at would be Joshua 5:10-15. I'm really not trying to hijack this thread with biblical debate, only point I was trying to make was IMO religion should be outside of the death penalty discussion.

[trish]

I take it you're claiming Jesus is the Captain of the Lord as well as His Son, kind of a time-lord appearing fourteen hundred years before he was born?

[Faldur]

I take it you're claiming Jesus is the Captain of the Lord as well as His Son, kind of a time-lord appearing fourteen hundred years before he was born?

I'll let you formulate your own opinion on that one, pretty sure you could guess mine.

[trish]

Well I just tried to guess yours and I'm not sure I got it right. Enlighten us, so that we might know the true nature of Jesus.

[Faldur]

Well I just tried to guess yours and I'm not sure I got it right. Enlighten us, so that we might know the true nature of Jesus.

This thread had a good discussion going and I've taken it a direction I am sure no one wanted to go. Im going to shut up now.. I feel a Christian can be either for the death penalty or against it, and find adequate literature in the Bible to back themselves up.


But a link just for you Trish (http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2007/01/21/jesus-christs-appearances-in-the-old-testament-pt-1/)

[Stavros]

so what is to be done with repeat violent offenders? i am all for putting them out the middle of nowhere and leaving them there and in Australia we have a lot of the middle of nowhere

Until Peter Falconio and his girlfriend show up..the 'middle of nowhere' is one of the most lawless and roughest parts of the world...

[Stavros]

Any sort of retribution (from vandalism to murder) carried out by individuals, families, tribes and clans can lead to an "endless cycle" of escalating crimes.
As I tried to point in an earlier post citing 'blood revenge' among the Bedouin, I don't think this is true -I don't know enough about the Jewish tribes of ancient 'Israel' to know if the problem of endless revenge also caused them to find ways out of this; I doubt that it exists. I believe in Papua New Guinea, some tribes will end a violent feud by slicing off the top of their finger, a visible sign that the dispute has ended. The point would be that societies, ancient and modern, try to find a way of de-escalating personal conflicts that threaten the wider peace of the group(s).

Trish, I asked you if you think Freedom is more important than Life
I meant, not what does a murderer think, but you –your judgement on capital punishment is the issue.

[trish]

I brought up freedom all the way back on the first page post #3 as a side issue. Here how it came about. I was reading some years an account of the Lewis & Clark expedition. On several occasions they resorted to flogging soldiers for relatively minor breaches like falling asleep on guard duty, drinking on duty, theft etc. Judging by the account no one questioned the practice, thought it abnormal or undue. Now flash forward to modern times. It got me to thinking that were I given the choice between getting five lashes or being sent to jail for a couple of years for three strikes of possession of marijuana, I’d choose the flogging.

Ask almost any person in the western world to list the political ideals they value the most and freedom is on the list. Yet freedom is the first thing we think to take away from a person when they commit a crime. To me that seems a bit ironic.

When trying to balance accounts with a murderer, I think the value the murderer places on freedom and the value the murderer places on life that is most relevant. But you ask me which is more important to me. It’s a tough call and of course depends on a number of things__like “Just what sort of restriction of freedom are we talking about and for how long?” Would I choose death over life long incarceration in a Federal penitentiary? I’d probably say yes. But I realize that most people who have actually had to make that choice chose life long incarceration. So I really can’t say with certainty what my answer would be were I really to find myself in the dire circumstance having to make that choice.

Regardless of how I feel about the relative merits of freedom vs life, my judgment on capital punishment is, “I’m against it.” It’s only the different arguments that have led various of us to that same conclusion that I’ve been questioning.

[Stavros]

Yet freedom is the first thing we think to take away from a person when they commit a crime. To me that seems a bit ironic.

I think the reasoning contrasts individual freedom with the freedom of society as a whole -the classic liberal definition is that one should be free to act as long as those acts do not harm or cause harm to others. Withdrawing freedom -of movement, for example, through imprisonment - is supposed to enhance the felon's appreciation of what freedom is compared to his/her selfish actions, so he/she won't do it again. Anyway this is way off the original thread, and it seems most people are opposed to the death penalty, as I am.

[russtafa]

i thought imprisonment was also to protect the victim or potential victims

[russtafa]

Australian law is reactive not proactive so it is always after the fact

[Stavros]

It was just a general point, Russtafa I can't cover all the angles all the time.

[hippifried]

At the risk of gettin' all Zenned up: Freedom is a state of mind. Life isn't an abstract at all. Take that away & freedom is a moot issue.

I've come to the conclusion that the discussion over capital punishment is really never about the person being executed. It's about the comfort level of the individuals who make up the society that's contemplating that action. Conscience is a funny thing. Good to have around though. My Question: When someone continuously goes out of their way to violate the moral code, how much of an expectation should they have of being covered by that same code?



It was just a general point, Russtafa I can't cover all the angles all the time.
No shit???!!! Damn! Another illusion dashed...

[Stavros]

When someone continuously goes out of their way to violate the moral code, how much of an expectation should they have of being covered by that same code?

The answer is none at all, they dont have a moral code, and don't know what morals are in any social sense. A lot of criminals, including pyschotics and psychopaths, as well as people like Mao Zedong, are so completely self-centred they only act on their own impulses and desires -leaving it to others to make judgements of them. That is also why the death penalty for them is meaningless, they always know they are going to die, how is of no importance; and yes, all these processes of judgement, of punishment, are for us: to allow us to confirm to each other that our values are worth something, that pure anarchy is both impracticable, and dangerous.

[russtafa]

i thought in locking someone up or executing someone was more about protecting society than punishment

[bte]

Death penalty FTW.

[BluegrassCat]

Death penalty FTW.

You support the death penalty for touring Wisconsin? Or is it for torturing Welshmen? Either way, harsh, dude.

[russtafa]

Welshmen used to be great at rugby and coal mines but i would not kill them.Shakin Stevens is a Welshman

[russtafa]

And Bonnie Tyler.Crazy Cavan and the Rythym Rockers

[onmyknees]

no matter if crime is so evil are you against the death penalty no matter what? are you for the death penalty with reservations ?

Russtafa....been otherwise occupied for several days, so I missed this.

I'm moderated my position on this for pragmatic reasons....not that the most vile among us shouldn't be extinguished. When they prove they have surrendered their right to walk among us...they should receive the Osama treatment. In fact, I would gladly be the hang man in certain situations, and never give it a second thought. But the reality is this....feckless politicians in almost every state with a death penalty law refuse to enforce the laws their predecessors have passed. Similar to the immigration situation. So if it's going to be applied randomly, or not at all.........why bother? Secondly, prosecutors routinely over reach in it's application. Witness Casey Anthony. Every rational thinker knew that no jury was going to put her to death. We should not burden our fellow citizens (jurors) with life and death decisions...that should be reserved for trained soldiers, trained police, and for judges.

Additionally, it takes almost 15 years from the day of the verdict to exact the final punishment. Appeal after endless appeal...and all have to be answered by the State ( the tax payer). If only anti death penalty zealots put as much effort into supplying poor and working folks with legal representation as they do the army of scum bags convicted of heinous crimes.

In the end, it's simply not worth the time, effort, money and misery needed to execute a killer. I say throw them in with the other murderers and let them sort it out.....Jeffery Dohmer style !

If Charlie Masion is still allowed to breath air and not dirt.........why should anyone be executed ? In fact...I've got a better idea to resolve both the southern border problem, and the death penalty question. I'm sure there's several thousand death row inmates rotting away in 5' cells. Round them up.....bus them to Nogolos Arizona in August, and get them start digging by hand for the foundation to erect a new borderfence. They'll be allowed some crackers, and a cup or water per day. And the ones that don't make it?? Roll them right in the hole and make them part of the foundation. There ya go...2 birds with one stone. Next problem?

[russtafa]

Wow you don't muck around

[onmyknees]

Nope...when you've served notice on society, that you're unfit to live amoung us ( and murder would be an indication of that !) The chain gang on the Mexican border would be a good start at reperation..

[russtafa]

tough to the end .i like the idea that outlaws are outside of the law so they do not have that protection.these people that kill or hurt members of the public should be cast out of society never to re-enter society without food or cover or protection

[russtafa]

I think maybe our politicians are to gutless to flick the switch because they don't want blood on their hands like the cowards they are and that go's for right or left.i would happily flick the switch on any kiddy killer or granny basher and laugh about it .after thinking about this issue these people don't deserve oxygen

[Nicole Dupre]

Emotionally, I'm often for it. But my emotions are invalid, ultimately. Intellectually, I'm against it. The justice system is far too flawed. Rotting in prison is good enough.

[Dino Velvet]

I'm for the Death Penalty as long as death is the penalty. Why is he still alive? Pretty much the worst of the worst.

http://feastofhateandfear.com/images/Ramirez.gif

In California, right is wrong and wrong is right. Here's a picture of The Night Stalker with his lovely bride.

http://midnightsunastrology.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richardramirezdoreenlioy.jpg?w=300&h=261


Here's what he did over and over again.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpbyylTnG91qa1dwco1_500.jpg

[Nicole Dupre]

Speaking of murder, what do you all think about the West Memphis Three taking a plea bargain? Personally, I think they did it. I don't give a crap what little pet causes people like Henry Rollins and Johnny Depp want to run with. The one kid confessed, and they were already found guilty. (I believe he actually confessed twice, if memory serves me correctly.) Damien Nichols was busted for torturing and killing a dog, and drinking it's blood, only months before the crime. He's a pretentious goth loser, who was very much into the left hand path magic. They caught him lying on the witness stand about being a Crowleyite. (Rollins and Depp are too, whether they'll talk about it or not.)

[Dino Velvet]

They caught him lying on the witness stand about being a Crowleyite. (Rollins and Depp are too, whether they'll talk about it or not.)

Johnny Depp must've made a deal with Lucifer or somebody. I remember him on 21 Jump Street and thought his spectacular death in Nightmare On Elm Street would be the highlight of his career.

[russtafa]

i never knew that they believe in dark religion.not good at all ,that stuff puts people in mental hospitals

[Nicole Dupre]

i never knew that they believe in dark religion.not good at all ,that stuff puts people in mental hospitals
Damien was in a mental hospital shortly before the murders.

[BluegrassCat]

Obviously I don't know what happened, but aside from the confession of a mentally retarded kid, wasn't all the evidence against them circumstantial?

[Nicole Dupre]

If the whole thing happened somewhere other than bumfuck, and the parents of the victims weren't sketchy white trash, there would have been less speculation on it being anyone other than the three in question. But that's bumfuck for you. The cops are morons, and the courts are a good ol' boy network. And together, they fucked up everything from the start. So they're left with three dead 8 yr olds, and 3 metalhead rednecks back out on the streets; one of whom spilled his guts in graphic detail, until a few celebs make a big enough stink.

[Nicole Dupre]

Obviously I don't know what happened, but aside from the confession of a mentally retarded kid, wasn't all the evidence against them circumstantial?
Yes, but he isn't retarded. He's stupid.

And he asked, after the first confession he gave, to make another one, and said the same thing, if I remember correctly. You can look into it, and let me know for sure. But that's what I remember reading and seeing on television

[Stavros]

Emotionally, I'm often for it. But my emotions are invalid, ultimately. Intellectually, I'm against it. The justice system is far too flawed. Rotting in prison is good enough.

Nicole, your intellectual argument is at the core of this debate. People are convicted on the evidence presented in court, not necessarily on ALL the available evidence. On the one hand, not all of the evidence against OJ Simpson was presented in Court; on the other hand, how many semi-literate Black men have been sent to death row on unreliable evidence their lousy lawyer failed to challenge?

What happens if the emotional need to hang/inject/electrify the convicted turns out to have gone before reason and 'new' evidence shows he/she would have been found not guilty in a different trial?

I dont know much about the West Memphis case: had all three been executed would this have been a just punishment?

I cannot accept that if society condemns murder, it should then do it. Once is enough.

[Nicole Dupre]

I dont know much about the West Memphis case: had all three been executed would this have been a just punishment?
Of course not. I don't want them to get the death penalty. I don't want ANYONE to get the death penalty. But I also don't believe that the WM3 are innocent.

Damien Echols blew kisses to the victims' parent the first time he appeared in court. He tortured a dog to death and drank it's blood. He was put in a psych ward, before the murders were committed, for threatening other teenagers' lives. He practiced black magick, and subscribed to a belief system that involves the ritual sacrifice of children. This was not simply a kid who went through a "goth phase", and who "dressed weird".

He was, and may very well still be, a grandiose sociopath imo. Sociopaths are known to be manipulative liars. I'm sure he regrets getting caught, but I doubt he regrets the murders if he committed them.

[russtafa]

he should be killed

[tsnajwa]

Its really difficult to say because people have gotten the death penalty for a number of reasons.. In cases when there is not a doubt the individual committed the murder, etc I beleive they shoudl get the death penalty.. But I also beleive the death penalty should be extended to lesser crimes besides murder.. In cases where a person has committed multiple violent crimes and there is no rehabilitation or change in behaviour..

Also death by dissection has to be the most horrible way to die omg.. :o

[Nicole Dupre]

There are many horrible ways to die. And personally, I'm generally very big on vendetta. But my disposition is, don't worry about what type of punishment some corrupt justice system is going to dish out to you. Worry about me having my way with you.

Having the system impersonally do what I should have done is completely unsatisfying. In fact, it's offensive. It's an admission of failure, actually. You created a monster, society. Now, after you fucked up and failed me and the animal in question, you want to bury your mistakes? No.

If the system has you behind bars, and you can't hurt anyone else, I'll consider that a consolation prize. I'll live with it. The best case scenario would be that there never was a "you". That's rational. I'll let it go at that point, even though I would have handled it differently.

Btw I'm all for the right to choose. I say, abort every fetus that's unwanted by the host organism. We don't need anymore unloved and unwanted monsters roaming streets. It's bad enough that the parents did anything as trivial as fuck in the first place. But then, for me to have to shit it up is adding insult to injury. But then these "right to life" simpletons want to cry , "Ooooh, life is too precious!" Bullshit. If life was so fucking precious, why the hell are so many people shitting all over one another? Please. *smfh

If the system wants people to have faith in "justice", it needs to do better. The system, killing anyone who's not an immanent threat to someone else after-the-fact, is absurd. They're a day late and a dollar short, and they aren't giving me any satisfaction. I'd rather feed the asshole to the alligators. At least they'd make practical use of the bastard in question, as long as he or she was fit for alligator consumption.

But, hey. That's me. And that's revenge. That's how I feel. It may not be pretty, but neither is putting someone in a chair and frying them. You cross me, and you're potentially in a dance with the devil. But at least I'm not sugar-coating my sadism with self-righteous bullshit.

[Stavros]

I don't see any difference between killing as an act of revenge, and the murder which provokes it. Both are wrong.

Murder occupies a different position in the law and human behaviour from other crimes, such as theft, because you cannot replace a life; and because most people value life more than they value their jewellery or their car. The death penalty as a deterrent to others clearly does not work; the justice system is imperfect because murderers can be released on technicalities or even avoid a trial for lack of evidence. Leaving aside manslaughter and crimes of passion, the men (and it is mostly men) who kill in gruesme and sadistic fashion and make grandiose claims for their inspiration, are often the ones who want to be remembered for their crimes, once they have been caught. The greatest punishment for these people is to be ignored; Charles Manson lost his liberty, but his notoriety has fed him for five decades, I think there should have been a ban on any news about him, photos, interviews and so on -the living death of his image would have been enough, why would anyone want to remember him? In the UK, also in the 1960s, a man called Ian Brady kidnapped several children and photographed them before raping them and murdering them, and burying their bodies on the Moors, one of the boys has never been found. We regularly hear the story of his crimes, mainly thanks to the Murdoch press which keeps this man in the public consciousness -and that is exactly what Brady wants, to protect his status as 'the most evil man in Britain'. Justice is about punishment, not revenge; what hurts the murderer most may sometimes be the most just punishment.

[Nicole Dupre]

I don't see any difference between killing as an act of revenge, and the murder which provokes it. Both are wrong.

Murder occupies a different position in the law and human behaviour from other crimes, such as theft, because you cannot replace a life; and because most people value life more than they value their jewellery or their car. The death penalty as a deterrent to others clearly does not work; the justice system is imperfect because murderers can be released on technicalities or even avoid a trial for lack of evidence. Leaving aside manslaughter and crimes of passion, the men (and it is mostly men) who kill in gruesme and sadistic fashion and make grandiose claims for their inspiration, are often the ones who want to be remembered for their crimes, once they have been caught. The greatest punishment for these people is to be ignored; Charles Manson lost his liberty, but his notoriety has fed him for five decades, I think there should have been a ban on any news about him, photos, interviews and so on -the living death of his image would have been enough, why would anyone want to remember him? In the UK, also in the 1960s, a man called Ian Brady kidnapped several children and photographed them before raping them and murdering them, and burying their bodies on the Moors, one of the boys has never been found. We regularly hear the story of his crimes, mainly thanks to the Murdoch press which keeps this man in the public consciousness -and that is exactly what Brady wants, to protect his status as 'the most evil man in Britain'. Justice is about punishment, not revenge; what hurts the murderer most may sometimes be the most just punishment.
If you kill someone's loved one, or violate someone, that's a risk. I don't guarantee myself to be level-headed. No one can, under a worst case scenario.

Therefore, I expect the system to be. That's their job. But the system has NO BUSINESS killing anyone.

[trish]

...most people value life more than they value their jewellery or their car.This simply isn't true. Run a poll here at HA. I think you'll find most people are willing defend their material possessions with lethal force. I'm not one of them, and you may not be one of them, but by and large people are willing to kill to keep what material goods they own. They value their own lives above jewellery or cars, but not the life of the would be thief. Conversely, many thieves carry weapons and are willing to kill rather than get caught. The fact is, humans talk a good game but their actions reveal the true value they place upon human life.

At the risk of being redundant (I've think I said as much before in this thread) justice derives from the word "just" which is to make even. Justice is simply State usurpation of revenge. It is an attempt to satisfy the survivor's (of the murder victim) need to "get even" and simultaneously shoulder the responsibility for that revenge so that the survivor avoids becoming the next target in a potentially infinite chain of tit for tat murders.

I sympathize with Nicole's POV and sometimes think that the loved ones of the murder victim should be the ones who pull the lever and execute the murderer. But that would circumvent the whole function behind having the State do it.

I have nothing against capital punishment for murder, except the unfortunate fact that jurors cannot be trusted to follow a logical argument without being derailed by flim-flam and bigotry. The finality of death is more certain than any judge or jury can be about the guilt or innocence of the accused. For that reason alone, I usually align myself against the death penalty. Were I certain of the accused's guilt, and my certitude was intellectually honest and mathematically airtight, I might pull that lever myself.

[Nicole Dupre]

Too many people get railroaded, and too many people just want a hanging.

By the same token, too many people walk because people judges and juries are potential chumps.

My problem with the death penalty actually begins there. I don't have mercy necessarily. I just don't believe the state should play god. Look at all the white collar crimes that go on while we pour tax money into the war on drugs. The system needs to do some major housekeeping, to say the very least.

[Nicole Dupre]

Truthfully, many people on death row WANT to die. Aileen Wuornos did. John Hughes feels the same way right now. But for my money, that's too easy. And I can't think of anything much worse than waking up in a cage for the rest of your life, knowing society has collectively disowned you. All forms of execution are too quick. And there's no torture like mental torture. I would suggest physical torture, but who the hell's going to do that? What sane, well-adjusted person? The answer is "none". Only another violent criminal is up to that task. Child molesters don't fare well behind bars. Too many criminals love their kids. Cops don't do well behind bars. Too many criminals simply won't allow them to.

People in jail and/or prison want OUT; either through the door, or through death.

But again, do you know how many people are on death row who are innocent? I don't, but I'm sure there are some. How many women who were raped thought "all the black guys in the line up looked the same"?

[robertlouis]

Truthfully, many people on death row WANT to die. Aileen Wuornos did. John Hughes feels the same way right now. But for my money, that's too easy. And I can't think of anything much worse than waking up in a cage for the rest of your life, knowing society has collectively disowned you. All forms of execution are too quick. And there's no torture like mental torture. I would suggest physical torture, but who the hell's going to do that? What sane, well-adjusted person? The answer is "none". Only another violent criminal is up to that task. Child molesters don't fare well behind bars. Too many criminals love their kids. Cops don't do well behind bars. Too many criminals simply won't allow them to.

People in jail and/or prison want OUT; either through the door, or through death.

But again, do you know how many people are on death row who are innocent? I don't, but I'm sure there are some. How many women who were raped thought "all the black guys in the line up looked the same"?

Your last paragraph sums it up for me, Nicole. If just one innocent person is put to death in error by the state, the entire argument in favour of the death penalty falls way. And the files are full of cases exactly like that.

I'm opposed to the death penalty on any grounds, as it happens, but that's the logical and moral clincher for me, if I'm forced to reach for an argument.

[OmarZ]

Truthfully, many people on death row WANT to die. Aileen Wuornos did. John Hughes feels the same way right now. But for my money, that's too easy. And I can't think of anything much worse than waking up in a cage for the rest of your life, knowing society has collectively disowned you. All forms of execution are too quick. And there's no torture like mental torture. I would suggest physical torture, but who the hell's going to do that? What sane, well-adjusted person? The answer is "none". Only another violent criminal is up to that task. Child molesters don't fare well behind bars. Too many criminals love their kids. Cops don't do well behind bars. Too many criminals simply won't allow them to.

People in jail and/or prison want OUT; either through the door, or through death.

But again, do you know how many people are on death row who are innocent? I don't, but I'm sure there are some. How many women who were raped thought "all the black guys in the line up looked the same"?

Forced Labour, 16 hours a day beats death row in my book... Make them do some good for humanity, clean up those reactors in japan, mine uranium,...

[Nicole Dupre]

Forced Labour, 16 hours a day beats death row in my book... Make them do some good for humanity, clean up those reactors in japan, mine uranium,...
That works for me.

[russtafa]

In Australia if a dog bites or harms someone it is put down .The same go's for people,in fact a dog is the better creature because if a dog bites it's only going by it's instinct.A human knows exactly why they do these evil crimes

[OmarZ]

In Australia if a dog bites or harms someone it is put down .The same go's for people,in fact a dog is the better creature because if a dog bites it's only going by it's instinct.A human knows exactly why they do these evil crimes

As ive said, its better to make them do something useful while they are living, and let God or whatever, take care of afterwards.

By killing them, you just let them be tottally useless.

[russtafa]

how can they be useful?

[JamesHunt]

State sanctioning the death penalty makes the state, electorate, and anyone else who agrees an accessory to murder.

[trish]

Or an accessory to justice. Never use an argument that takes it's conclusion as a premise.

[robertlouis]

Or an accessory to justice. Never use an argument that takes it's conclusion as a premise.

In terms of the application of pure logic, you're right of course, Trish.

But I find the idea of state-sanctioned murder abhorrent in any circumstances. And given that so much of US values are supposedly Christian, I find it utter hypocrisy that so many in your country also seem happy with the death penalty. The old saw of an eye for an eye comes from the Old Testament, not the new. Part of the bible, yes, but not part of the Christian creed.

[russtafa]

murder go's on all the time in prison usually sponsored by gangs or organised crime what does the justice system think of that?

[robertlouis]

murder go's on all the time in prison usually sponsored by gangs or organised crime what does the justice system think of that?

In a lot of countries it cynically shrugs its shoulders and lets things carry on as before, and as often as not it's recognised that it couldn't happen without the tacit or backhanded involvement of the prison authorities.

[russtafa]

and the justice system is perverted in and out of prison and even the judges are frightened

[hippifried]

Slice & dice. Salvage the parts.

[russtafa]

what parts? i always liked the French system"guilty until proven innocent" makes it harder to weasel out of it

[hippifried]

what parts? i always liked the French system"guilty until proven innocent" makes it harder to weasel out of it
Heart, skin, corneas, all the organs, etc.. Poisons or high doses of electric current make just about all of it unusable. You know somebody, who's probably perfectly healthy, is going to die at a specific time. There's people on waiting lists for every piece of that cadaver. Why waste it?

[NaughtyJane]

I suppose it serves some of society... The Death Penalty.
My personal take is it cheapens the institution, the judicial ideal... and a contemporary, cozy euthanasia is a easy road for the culture, and the defendant.
I'd prefer life for the accused, live it out, think it through... and in the instance of error, survival.
But, my idealism is certainly trumped by all the complexities of the actual dispensation of sentences and practices of police and law.
The practice of law, the criminal justice system is like a very undesirable communicable disease .... avoided at all costs.

[runningdownthatdream]

The practice of law, the criminal justice system is like a very undesirable communicable disease .... avoided at all costs.

Agreed..............the very fact that we are enslaved by enshrined laws diminishes our inherent freedom.

[trish]

Yeah, fuck laws. People are freer when their whole community can be dominated by the whims of one rich fucker and his hired thugs.

[hippifried]

Yeah, fuck laws. People are freer when their whole community can be dominated by the whims of one rich fucker and his hired thugs.
So Godmother, could yoou grant me a favor?

[runningdownthatdream]

Yeah, fuck laws. People are freer when their whole community can be dominated by the whims of one rich fucker and his hired thugs.

Perhaps that may happen. But people will be free to choose whether they want to be dominated or whether they don't. The problem is that we want the safety and security that laws bring but to force people to accept those laws we then install the security and government apparatus which becomes the new tool for those who seek to dominate others. So, in effect 'we the people' have created our own prisons and the rich fuckers just uses his servants to run the prison.

But at least we can be force fed all the garbage sold to us in safety and security!

[Faldur]

So Godmother, could yoou grant me a favor?

Come on Hippi, its not the day of her daughters wedding..

[trish]

Perhaps that may happen. But people will be free to choose whether they want to be dominated or whether they don't. How do you figure that? In the world of sexual fantasy one consents to domination. But in the real world, domination usually means "against one's will."


The problem is that we want the safety and security that laws bring but to force people to accept those laws... In a representative government we agree to those laws, they aren't forced upon us. They are the result of a long process public discussion, and of give and take among our elected legislators. Of course there are always some people who have to be forced to do even the most reasonable things, like if you live in a community and use the local well and the local roads, contribute a share proportional to your use. There are always people who have to be forced to do things like not kill others, not steal, not con others out of their life savings, etc.


...we then install the security and government apparatus which becomes the new tool for those who seek to dominate others.This is always a danger. Governments which were fairly representative can be usurped by powerful people. This is why we try to build in checks and balances. It's why we shouldn't allow huge gaps in wealth and power to exist within society, at least not without a continuum between. This is why the Supreme Court made a mistake declaring corporations were persons when it comes to their ability to give to political campaigns. But living with these risks, these correctable mistakes and others is preferable to living without laws entirely and serving in a more immediate fashion the whims of the wealthy and powerful.


So, in effect 'we the people' have created our own prisons and the rich fuckers just uses his servants to run the prison.Obviously you haven't lived in a real prison or served a real tyrant. Neither have I, but I've read and have an imagination. We built a reasonably secure society. Every system, even the system of having no system, can be taken over by the charismatic, the wealthy and the powerful. Each system runs its own risks. The system of having no laws, runs the worst risks.

[Helvis2012]

No....

[runningdownthatdream]

How do you figure that? In the world of sexual fantasy one consents to domination. But in the real world, domination usually means "against one's will."

There are those 'in the real world' who are quite content to be administered.


In a representative government we agree to those laws, they aren't forced upon us. They are the result of a long process public discussion, and of give and take among our elected legislators. Of course there are always some people who have to be forced to do even the most reasonable things, like if you live in a community and use the local well and the local roads, contribute a share proportional to your use. There are always people who have to be forced to do things like not kill others, not steal, not con others out of their life savings, etc.

Representative government didn't spring fully formed - like Diana from Zeus - out of the mind of humanity. Its roots were likely noble but even then it wasn't a process which involved the majority of the people in any one city/culture/country. If you buy into the theory that democracy came from Greece then you should know that it was only a small part of the male population of the greek city-states that had the right to vote for their representatives. Over time, sure the process became more inclusive but it also became more malleable and less transparent. I do not believe that truly representative government is possible without a fully armed and educated population which ensures that government never becomes bigger than the people.


This is always a danger. Governments which were fairly representative can be usurped by powerful people. This is why we try to build in checks and balances. It's why we shouldn't allow huge gaps in wealth and power to exist within society, at least not without a continuum between. This is why the Supreme Court made a mistake declaring corporations were persons when it comes to their ability to give to political campaigns. But living with these risks, these correctable mistakes and others is preferable to living without laws entirely and serving in a more immediate fashion the whims of the wealthy and powerful.

You have a good point - we in North America are indeed much better off than others since we are not blatantly enslaved.


Obviously you haven't lived in a real prison or served a real tyrant. Neither have I, but I've read and have an imagination. We built a reasonably secure society. Every system, even the system of having no system, can be taken over by the charismatic, the wealthy and the powerful. Each system runs its own risks. The system of having no laws, runs the worst risks.

I have spent a short time imprisoned and have lived under a pseudo-dictatorship. Definitely living on the outside of prison and in Canada is preferable. It is all about degrees anyways....we choose to accept that which is the least risk in order to preserve life. But somehow the primal spark of Abel remains in me. (and no I'm not a follower of the bible or any religion)