In article ,
DSK wrote:
just like nobody is in favor of abortion. It's a question of
rights vs gov't authority.

Depends on the person... oh wait, that's a detail. :-)

Personally, I think that if one believes that the state has
no moral right to capital punishment; then by logic, the
state would also have no right to wage war.

I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone. There are worse things that are less expensive.

If an individual has the right to defend his own life, his
family, & his property, then by all logic that right extends
to use of deadly force at the extreme. The state is nothing
but a large group of citizens, therefor the citizens have
the right to endow that state with authority to use deadly
force (when in extremis) to protect them. In other words, I
have no problem with capital punishment, IMHO those guilty
beyond doubt of heinous crimes *should* be executed.

The state should be a reflection of the people contained in it, but
not an exact reflection. It should act in the best interest of as many
people as possible, but also act in the best interests of a small
group in certain circumstances.

I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice. The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity. There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

War is a different matter, where the survival of the state (and the
people) is at stake.

However I have a big problem with the way the death penalty
is currently applied in this country. But hey, it's always
detail detail detail!

Perhaps that's why the Illinois governor suspended all such penalties
in his state?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Personally, I think that if one believes that the state has
no moral right to capital punishment; then by logic, the
state would also have no right to wage war.


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone.

???
Is this one of those 'meaning of life' type statements? Does
it serve any purpose to live in the first place?

In any event, execution *definitely* serves a purpose. It
removes a threat & a waste of good oxygen.

... There are worse things that are less expensive.


The reason why the death penalty is so expensive is that
it's the subject of endless meaningless appeals. Meanwhile,
health care for prisoners is not a trivial expense for the
state, either.



The state should be a reflection of the people contained in it, but
not an exact reflection. It should act in the best interest of as many
people as possible, but also act in the best interests of a small
group in certain circumstances.


Well, here's the problem. "The best interest of a small
group in certain circumstances" always opposes the best
interest of certain other groups. Some people are opposed to
anybody owning a gun, others are opposed to drunk driving,
beer in cans, etc etc. Obviously not everybody gets their
own way all the time.



I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice.

That's OK, you don't have to be the one that throws the switch.


... The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity.

Now here's one of those problematic details: define "necessity."

... There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It puts the guards at risk, the person
could escape, a change of administration policy, or a
paperwork mistake could release them, etc etc.

There is no recidivism from the death penalty.




War is a different matter, where the survival of the state (and the
people) is at stake.


Pretty much equivalent cases, I'd say. The difference is a
matter of scale.

DSK

In article ,
DSK wrote:
Personally, I think that if one believes that the state has
no moral right to capital punishment; then by logic, the
state would also have no right to wage war.


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone.

???
Is this one of those 'meaning of life' type statements? Does
it serve any purpose to live in the first place?

Of course. I mean, who the f*ck knows.

In any event, execution *definitely* serves a purpose. It
removes a threat & a waste of good oxygen.

He wasn't a threat any more. In fact, he did some good while in
prison. While this in no way justifies or excuses he prior actions, it
does remove the "threat" concern from the table.

... There are worse things that are less expensive.


The reason why the death penalty is so expensive is that
it's the subject of endless meaningless appeals. Meanwhile,
health care for prisoners is not a trivial expense for the
state, either.

I agree! I think there should be very few appeals. However, there
would be even fewer right now, if the DP were removed from the table.

The state should be a reflection of the people contained in it, but
not an exact reflection. It should act in the best interest of as many
people as possible, but also act in the best interests of a small
group in certain circumstances.


Well, here's the problem. "The best interest of a small
group in certain circumstances" always opposes the best
interest of certain other groups. Some people are opposed to
anybody owning a gun, others are opposed to drunk driving,
beer in cans, etc etc. Obviously not everybody gets their
own way all the time.

Sure. I know. That's why we have courts, lawyers, politicians, etc.

I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice.

That's OK, you don't have to be the one that throws the switch.

But, that's the fun part. I think we should abolish the death penalty,
but not tell anyone. You go right up to execution time, they put the
hood on your face, but instead of dropping cyanide, drop Alka Seltzer
tablets. Now, that's cruel and unusual.

... The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity.

Now here's one of those problematic details: define "necessity."

When the state faces utter destruction (we're talking about a
legitimate state of course).

... There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It puts the guards at risk, the person
could escape, a change of administration policy, or a
paperwork mistake could release them, etc etc.

There is no recidivism from the death penalty.

Not much. There's always a slight chance of just about everything, but
I don't think it's much of a chance in reality. It would be
interesting to see some stats about something like that
happening.. I'm sure it has happened, but it's so rare.

War is a different matter, where the survival of the state (and the
people) is at stake.


Pretty much equivalent cases, I'd say. The difference is a
matter of scale.

Scale is one of those important details. In the case of some things,
looking at the limiting cases doesn't really help.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

... I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone.


In any event, execution *definitely* serves a purpose. It
removes a threat & a waste of good oxygen.


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
He wasn't a threat any more.

Disagree strongly.
There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no
unreformed murderers on death row.


... In fact, he did some good while in
prison. While this in no way justifies or excuses he prior actions, it
does remove the "threat" concern from the table.

Nope, just the opposite... it is a point in favor of
granting clemency, after all he can't write many positive
influence children's books from that great solitary cell in
the sky. But the man was, as far as can be proven, a
multiple murderer. Definnitely a threat to society IMHO.




I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice.

That's OK, you don't have to be the one that throws the switch.


But, that's the fun part. I think we should abolish the death penalty,
but not tell anyone. You go right up to execution time, they put the
hood on your face, but instead of dropping cyanide, drop Alka Seltzer
tablets. Now, that's cruel and unusual.


Better yet, hold alka-seltzer in one hand and cyanide in the
other and say 'guess which hand?'


... The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity.

Now here's one of those problematic details: define "necessity."


When the state faces utter destruction (we're talking about a
legitimate state of course).


Or when a person has committed at least one heinous crime
such that his very humanity is in doubt, and it is too great
a risk to let him continue to share our planet.

It would be the same with some people in my house or yard,
same for the whole planet. A problem removed is a problem
solved.

DSK

In article ,
DSK wrote:
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
He wasn't a threat any more.

Disagree strongly.
There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no
unreformed murderers on death row.

True, but who's he going to murder locked away 23 hours a day?

Nope, just the opposite... it is a point in favor of
granting clemency, after all he can't write many positive
influence children's books from that great solitary cell in
the sky. But the man was, as far as can be proven, a
multiple murderer. Definnitely a threat to society IMHO.

He did do some good in prison. That's a fact. What he did prior to
prison should make it impossible for him to be released. He was not a
threat to society in prison.

But, that's the fun part. I think we should abolish the death penalty,
but not tell anyone. You go right up to execution time, they put the
hood on your face, but instead of dropping cyanide, drop Alka Seltzer
tablets. Now, that's cruel and unusual.


Better yet, hold alka-seltzer in one hand and cyanide in the
other and say 'guess which hand?'

Hahaha... ok.

Or when a person has committed at least one heinous crime
such that his very humanity is in doubt, and it is too great
a risk to let him continue to share our planet.

His humanity was never, should never be in doubt. I don't think there
have been that many murderers who have escaped from prison in recent
times.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Jon;

Where are you getting your information about "Tookie" not being a
problem in prison? I've heard he's been a Rapist and a damn bully with
his fellow prisioners? I don't know what's true but I'm glad he is died!

Ole Thom

In article ,
Thom Stewart wrote:
Jon;

Where are you getting your information about "Tookie" not being a
problem in prison? I've heard he's been a Rapist and a damn bully with
his fellow prisioners? I don't know what's true but I'm glad he is died!

Don't know. Who cares? He was in prison. He was not a threat to
society any more.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Jon;

Where are you getting your information about "Tookie" not being a
problem in prison? I've heard he's been a Rapist and a damn bully with
his fellow prisioners? I don't know what's true but I'm glad he is died!

Prison isn't Boy Scout camp, Thom. Why do you think prison guards and
administrators turn a blind side to such things? It may be illegal for
prison authorities to abuse prisoners, but when they do it to each other
it's just part of the perils of being convicted of criminal activity. Sucks
to be them, I guess.

Max

He planned an escape. His plan involved killing
several guards. His "friends" ratted him out. The
evidence, the plan, was in his own handwriting.

I've also heard he was a rapist in prison.

NO redeeming characteristics, except for phoney
ones, IMHO, in an attempt to look like a reformed
man.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in .

He did do some good in prison. That's a fact. What he did prior to
prison should make it impossible for him to be released. He was not a
threat to society in prison.

Doesn't matter if he had redeeming characteristics or not. We are judged by
how we treat those who are the worst, not by how we treat those who are the
best.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
He planned an escape. His plan involved killing
several guards. His "friends" ratted him out. The
evidence, the plan, was in his own handwriting.

I've also heard he was a rapist in prison.

NO redeeming characteristics, except for phoney
ones, IMHO, in an attempt to look like a reformed
man.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in .

He did do some good in prison. That's a fact. What he did prior to
prison should make it impossible for him to be released. He was not a
threat to society in prison.