As to flame baits... I am internet fearless... so I don't care.
As to the ISS being useful... its purpose was to bridge relations with the Russians. It failed. Absent that we would not have built it at all.
As to shooting space junk, remind me why we need to put a space laser on the ISS and not just on anything at all? We could have a space junk shooting satellite. The Russians will accuse us of putting weapons in space but what is new.
As to the Russians not being able to put pressure on the US if we didn't make ourselves vulnerable to them... thank you for proving my fucking point. That is why I don't want to give them more leverage. They exploit EVERYTHING no matter how petty and rediculious.
Newsflash, the US doesn't actually care about the ISS. As you point out, we didn't really fund space exploration for awhile. Why was that? Because we had more pressing concerns.
If the Russians are going to exploit every moment of weakness to get something then they are terrible partners for ANYTHING.
This is right up there with that dumb idea to put a tunnel between Alaska and Siberia so we could have a transcontinental train.
No one is investing in SHIT to do with Russia because no one trusts them. Think about it. Russia sits between east asia and Europe. One of the busiest trade routes in the world. And what does everyone do? They bypass Russia by any means.
If Russia were at all truthworthy there would be a big freight train service from China to Europe. But instead, everything is loaded on to boats and taken by sea. Think of the trade Russia would get if the cargo ran through their country? Warehouses, factories, all sorts of infrastructure investment, lots of transport jobs. I mean... we're talking about total economic benefits into the hundreds of billions per year at the very least.
And Russia ruins any chance they'll have at getting any of that on a regular basis by being raging morons.
And before anyone says "oh the US isn't trustworthy either"... well then why is the US getting massive investment from all over the world as well as a huge capital flight from China AND Russia into the US? It must be because these powerful interests want to lose their money. Because if the US isn't a trustworthy investment then putting your money in the US is stupid. So no... the US is exceptionally trustworthy. That isn't saying the US is perfect... and all things are relative.
... They immediately break up again after the merger. They can swap bodily fluids or whatever gross thing conglomerates do when no one is watching. I won't peak or take pictures or put it up on the internet as revenge porn. But when they've got their hormones under control again, I want them separated off because we can't have just one fucking cable company in the US. It is already basically two for the whole country. That's pathetic. We should have a dozen at least. And they want to move it from two to one?
As I said... they can fool around for awhile if they want. We'll get them a room and everything. But we can't have just one cable company.
They're actually replacing most of those people fleeing with "undocumented" people.
The fiscal issue should be interesting. Also the politics should get funny at some point. The democrats think rampant immigration is good for them... they don't seem to grasp that if they lean too hard on the that demographic it will require first that they only put that demographic's candidates on the ballot. So all the old political families in California are going to be out on their ear.
And then the other issue is that the people from south of the border have very different sensibilities about a lot of things. They're very serious Catholics typically. That means they don't respond well to issues of homosexuality, the whole gay marriage thing, and other various issues. Also... because they're not white, they don't have white guilt. Which means you can't play identity politics against them if they don't do what you want them to do. And that is something the left relies upon very heavily to bolster any argument that isn't going well for them.
It will be interesting. I hope Cali pulls through. But it has to get a lot worse before it can get better.
I'm not putting space lasers on something the Russians can fuck with... At this point, I've gone full cold war on the Russians in my foreign policy thinking. I've had a few conversations with the Church of Putin and they're so fucking delusional that I have zero hope of a peaceful end to this crap. And that being the case, I don't want to give the russians any leverage on us what so ever.
I'm not really worried about the Russians doing anything to the laser. I'm more worried about us CARING about the ISS. The Russians have already attempted to use access to the ISS as leverage against us and that frankly just burns me on the whole project. Decommission it or ideally pawn it off on someone else. Maybe the Chinese want it? I don't care.
The ISS was a post cold war team building exercise between the US and the Russian Federation. And quite recently the US did a "trust fall" with the Russians and they said something to the effect of "we suggest the americans try trampolines to get into space"... Which means the team building exercise was a complete failure. And that means the ISS was a complete failure at its ACTUAL purpose.
The Russians are going back to their old ways. So the ISS is dead to me.
And that means I'm not putting anything of any value on it what so ever. I'm ready to deorbit it. The Russians can forge ahead with their own entirely independent space program with zero help from the US.
Well technically it makes it not a murder either. It makes it an execution.
Now you want to equate executions in the US with the Nazi gas chambers?
Really? *laughs*
Whatever, by this same logic all imprisonments are also invalid... there were a lot of people in concentration camps as well, remember? Your stupid nazi references would invalidate any state action. I mean, the nazis also arrested people and fined people. Are all arrests and fines fascistic?
Obviously not... neither are all executions. Give me a flying fucking break.
I am either confident enough to put someone down or I'm not confident enough to even lock them up.
You can't undermine the justice system without undermining the justice system. You're saying it is only shit in one situation and that is unsupportable. It is either shit in general or it isn't.
As to you saying you care, then we can ship our convicts to your country? Please say yes because we can start filling jumbo jets right now.
If not, then this is our affair thank you very much. I'm not feeding convicted mass murderers. They can ride the lightning.
As to your claim that 12 months is not enough time. That's all I'm giving you. Take it or leave it. You can't wait longer than that.
Guess I'm just going to have to live with you being outraged... Oh well.
As to you not turning over a man to be executed... whatever. If my country needs something from yours we have more than enough leverage to get what we need. I mean... if you want to play the who has a bigger dick game? I'm not especially interested in it. But you seem to think you have leverage on me because you keep saying "I won't extradite people". Well, fine. In most cases we won't care. In the event where we do, we'll have a private conversation with your people and work out an equitable compromise.
Generally the only thing we'd want that would rise to the level of a diplomatic incident would be information. So, we might bargain for the information which we can pay for by providing our own information about various things. Beyond that... you want to hold on to a murderer? Have fun with him. You can put him in charge of your kindergarteners for all I care.
As to what is and is not immoral... that is your opinion. I am already on record with the opinion that your moral stance is hypocritical and naive. It doesn't make sense. You're attempting to claim the system is unfair in one context that would naturally effect everything. If the justice system is unreliable then why are you imprisoning people falsely? You say it isn't the same thing but that is only your opinion. If you are falsely imprisoning me, falsely fining me, and falsely doing everything... the occasional false execution is a drop in the bucket when the vast majority of what you do is not an execution and equally likely if not more likely to be false.
For every person falsely executed how many people are falsely imprisoned? And how do you equate the value of one executed person with how ever many imprisoned people?
The ratio in the US between imprisoned to executed is thousands to one.
What percentage of people do you think are falsely executed? I'll let you cite a number. I'm going to then multiply that number by the ratio of imprisoned to executed people... and then I'm going to assume the numbers are higher with the imprisoned because the legal rigor is lower.
The number is going to be big enough that you're going to have a hard time justifying it.
But at the same time you're going to know you have no choice. It has to be done. You have to accept the system.
When OJ Simpson was acquitted you had three groups of people that had opinions about it.
Group one said he was innocent because he was black and the white man has it out for black people.
Group two said he was guilty because he had a load of circomstancial evidence on him and he ran from the scene and was acting crazy.
Group three said the jury did not find him guilty therefore he is not guilty.
Which of those groups do you think I fell into?...
Group Three.
And that sword cuts both ways. Just as I will despite my better judgment say a man is innocent because a jury of his peers found him to be innocent, I will likewise hold a man as guilty if found guilty. If the jury votes for the death penalty, then not only am I willing to have the axe drop... the axe MUST drop. Justice must be done. The court has ruled. Execute the sentence.
As to life in prison being a lesser sentence that death... of course... that is why only the worst criminals get sentenced to death. Obviously. These are people that are beyond redemption. That is the point. A person that didn't go away for a capital crime might be redeemable. A capital offender though? There's no point.
Where on a continuum is "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?
As to capital punishment being too expensive, that is because they can appeal for ten million years. Have the execution one year after conviction unless enough evidence comes forward to call the initial trail into question.
Do that and the cost of execution will fall far below life in prison.
If you're in for life without parol you don't get all these appeals which is why it is cheaper. it is the LEGAL costs of the execution and not the execution itself.
What is more, the costs are only so high because the people opposed to it are basically trolling us by setting unreasonable standards to get the exact response from you that you are giving them.
They want to control your actions by trolling you. You don't stop trolls by giving them what they want. They're like fucking terrorists that instead of killing you annoy you. The worst thing you can do is give them what they want.
If these people want to have an HONEST debate about the issue in the houses of congress then we can do that. If they want to play a bunch of fucking games to try and get their way without actually carrying the argument then they can go fuck themselves with a rake.
That is the big issue here. Even while they talk about water conservation they're still zoning more land for development. Still building more apartments. Still building more office parks. Still building stuff they can't provide water or power or transport for...
So why are we doing that?
Here is how we fix this issue. Link development to existing infrastructure. Lock California's development to the resources it can actually provide to residents. Then if people want to build something new, they FIRST have to get the infrastructure expanded.
The issue will solve itself quite quickly.
And LA didn't steal the water. It bought it. Yes, I know the people of Owens valley were very sad that the water all went away. It was bought and paid for. Get over it.
The old city fathers of Los Angeles wouldn't have let this happen to them. They took care of business. The existing leadership have their heads so far up their own asses they don't know what is going on anymore. It is sad watching them. They try to do good. They really do. But they can't. Too much corruption. Too many special interests. Too many people milking the system. They can't do anything. All the money and political will goes to graft. Nothing left for visionary urban planning. Nothing left to keep the city vibrant.
1. We don't imprison someone for life over a bar fight that went wrong. Your statement displays a painful amount of ignorance as to how the law works. I do not mean that as an insult... I am merely expressing my frustration with your own unawareness with how little you know.
For example we have many tiers of murder:
First you have manslaughter: Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century B.C..[1]
The definition of manslaughter differs from place of jurisdiction. The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind, or the circumstances under which the killing occurred (mitigating factors). Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter; however, this is not the case in all jurisdictions.[2]
In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, Canada, and some Australian states, "adequate provocation" is a partial defense to a charge of murder, which, if accepted by the jury, would convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. In Australia, specifically New South Wales, manslaughter is a common law offence as it is not defined in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) under section 18(1)(b). [3]
Then you have third degree murder
Third degree is a murder that happens while you attempting to hurt someone but not actually kill them. Your bar fight would be a third degree murder or the very weakest possible kind.
Then you have second degree murder
Second degree tends to include crimes of passion. Getting really mad and in the spur of the moment killing someone on purpose. The husband or wife that walks in on their significant other cheating on them and attacks with intent to kill would be second degree.
Then you have first degree murder
First degree is premeditated cold methodical murder. This is where someone thought about it, did some planning, or did some seriously fucked up shit along the way that causes the courts to label the murders "aggravated" because they were especially nasty.
Of these FOUR types of killing only the last one is going to get you even considered for a death penalty. And even then, it tends to require that the incident be especially ruthless or horrible.
So no... no one is going to the gas chamber because of a bar fight unless the judge was a real piece of shit. Which is possible. But that is not how it typically works.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're saying... are you saying all courts throughout the world are illegitimate... besides Norway for some reason?
Fine... then you say the legal process is invalid and... anarchy.
See, I was right the first time... you people are so ideologically blinkered that you'll support a line of logic that undermines the entire government and society and civilization simply to attack capital punishment.
It is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face... or possibly your penis... something unpleasant. You can't attack capital punishment and JUST capital punishment by saying the courts suck. That undermines the courts in general.
As to keeping someone alive simply on the off chance that there was a shadow of a doubt... again, I'm not imprisoning people at all unless I have confidence in the system.
At all.
As to your belief that you're not comfortable with courts making life and death choices... long term imprisonment is a life and death choice. You're taking their life away and putting them in a cage.
If you don't have confidence that you were correct in convicting that person then you're an uncaring monster.
You either have confidence in the system or you don't.
There is no "maybe" option in a court of law. Not in the US and not in whatever country you're from. There is innocence and there is guilt.
That's it. End. Done. Period.
You convict or you don't.
If you convict, then you need to own it. If you don't then let him go.
As to you not liking the idea of exile... hey, you don't want me to kill the guy... I'm giving you the opportunity to have fun with him instead. You can put him in a prison cell if you want and feed him. Give him to me and if he did terrible things then there is a good chance I'm going to put him down. So... do you care about this precious human life enough to save it? Or just enough to attempt to make me feel badly about putting down a murderer. Because I won't feel bad. I don't value his life. He's a waste of resources.
As to it not being required to kill them... neither is it required to keep them alive.
As to capital punishment being too expensive, not really. It only expensive because the cases have about a million appeals and people on death row draw it out endlessly even if they're guilty as sin because it means they stay alive longer.
If you haven't figured it out in 12 months then you're doing it wrong. One year after the initial trial is concluded... and the execution happens. I'll wait 12 months AFTER conviction. That is generous and patient. I am agreeing to hold a man convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt for 12 months on the chance that some new evidence will come up. If you haven't found it in 12 months then its time for your last meal. The existing system is so expensive because sometimes these guys are in appeals for 10 years after conviction. That is fucking retarded. 10 years of appeals? Give me a fucking break.
As to the right to life being irrevocable... okay then where is the right for me to feed this person or shelter them? Or give them medical care? See, my response to your notion that I can't kill him because his life is sacred is that I'm going to put him on a plane and send him to your country. You can take care of him.
He will not eat my food. I could starve him death in a cell if you want... seems crueler than the other options but I'm not feeding him. He gets nothing from me. You say he is entitled to live... the problem is that he is not entitled to live in my society and I am not obligated to feed him. So how does he live when he can't be in my society and I don't have to feed him? Are mass murderers entitled to my food as well? Why do I have to help them live? These people killed people. You wish to permit them to become a further burden on our society? No. If you want them we could probably ship them to your country by the thousand. Have fun with them. There are more than a few of these people.
And of course if you doubt the accuracy of our justice system and think we convicted a bunch of innocent people then put them on your streets. Your funeral.;-D Within 24 hours a few of them will be wearing some of your citizens skin for clothing... raping and murdering their way across the country.
And when you've come upon yet another child with its head cut off and jammed onto a spike... you might realize why I'm so comfortable putting these people down.
Contrary to what you hear from the media this is not something we do lightly in the US. We put people down that are monsters. Is the system perfect? Nothing is perfect. The vast overwhelming majority of them are monsters. I thin
Precisely. And if any of us have the right to question and ignore the law because we don't like it then what validity does the law have in any country?
Your point while valid is not relevant within the context of the host society. You need to make an argument that is relevant within our society and not presume to rewrite or nullify our laws from without.
Unless you have a big army you want to conquer us with over this issue... I mean, that was how we dealt with Saddam.
We said "hey saddam we don't like what you're doing" and he said "well its my country so I can do what I want"... and we said "oh really?"...
So... do you have a great big army to make me give a shit or not?
Because lets face it, you don't. And as you don't you're going to need to make an argument that has some relevance from WITHIN my society and not presume to judge me from without. I don't see why I need to care what you think. Your values and beliefs are just that... YOURS. They're not mine or everyone's or my society's. We don't really care what you think just because YOU think it.
How narcissistic are you that you think that just because you believe something every country on earth has to fall in line? Get over yourself.
As to the least you can do, the least you can do is have a justice system worth a damn.
Given your perspective, I don't see how you can convict anyone of anything. If I held your view, I'd have so little faith in the system that I'd just say we shouldn't have the trials at all. How can we trust them if they're constantly convicting innocent people and doubtless letting guilty people go all the time?
Either you have faith in the legal system or you don't.
Guilty or innocent is a BINARY solution set. There is no "maybe" option in it.
If you can't commit to that then the whole process if bullshit. We might as well just let all the doubtless innocent people out of jail right now, fire all the lawyers, fire all the judges, I'm not sure what the point of police are since they probably only exist to shoot random black people for no reason. And let the chips fall where they may.
Here you'll say I'm making an absurd argument. I'm not though... this is what we have left if the justice system falls apart.
Here is my core problem with your point. You're making what appears to me to be a dishonest argument.
You are saying that because the justice system is bullshit we can't give it the power to execute people. Then in every other situation you seem to be just fine with the bullshit nature of the justice system.
Stop right there. No. If it is not trust worthy to execute someone then I don't trust them to imprison someone either. If you're too incompetent to run a murder trial with execution as a sentence then you're too incompetent to run a murder trial with life in prison as a sentence.
It is a package deal. You can't say the justice system is JUST incompetent enough that they can't execute but totally competent to do the rest. That makes no fucking sense. If you can't be trusted to manage "no shadow of doubt" then you can't be trusted to do the rest.
The most disappointing aspect of this discussion is that I'm almost positive you're just using this "what about innocent people" argument as a ploy. I don't think you really are that worried about the integrity of the justice system. IF you were you'd be more inclined to rail against it in general rather than specifically on executions. I think you're using it as a ploy to argue against executions. And that's sad because I'd like to hear and contend with an honest argument rather than one cloaked in misinformation and half truths.
I am being completely straight with you. I feel we should execute people that have committed unforgivable crimes because they can't be permitted back into society and keeping them warehoused somewhere is a waste of resources.
That is literally why I feel the way I do. I also am utterly unburdened by your moral qualms about putting psychopaths down. I have no problem with it.
Imagine for the sake of argument that you felt the way I did... that you felt it was a waste of resources and you didn't especially feel any moral or ethical guilt at putting the a convicted murderer down.
Then imagine someone comes at you and hand wrings about how it is wrong to execute people.
This sounds very much like the vegan anti eating animals arguments. I'm going to eat bacon. It is going to happen. I'm also going to vote in favor of putting murderers down.
Not for revenge. I love that some of you think I want these people to suffer... If I had that intention then I'd be advocating torturing them. Do you people honestly think this is as nasty and wicked as I'm capable of being? The horrors I could unleash on someone under my power would probably cause you to lose your lunch.
I point that all out to make clear that I am NOT taking any revenge in putting them down. This is impersonal, clinical, cold. If I stroked my inner sadist then you'd know it. I can't decide if I'd go old fashioned with general dismemberment for shock and horror... or if I'd load the fellow up with psychotropics and break him and then turn him into something else just for the lolz.
Anyway... yeah... I'm not taking revenge. You would know it if I were. I'd either get medieval on the fellow or possibly Lewis Carroll on him.
I didn't say a trial was a punishment or a sentence.
As to your notion that I could give someone what they want by killing them... I can't speak to the sad delusions of maniacs.
Here is another way to think about executions... and it is largely how I think about them.
It is taking out the trash. It isn't about making them suffer. This new execution method for example is quite painless. The point of an execution is to not waste further energy on human trash. You kill them, throw out the corpse... move on. Here some fool will say "but they're human beings"... they were convicted in a court of law beyond a shadow of a doubt to have committed crimes worthy of execution. None but human garbage get that sentence. It is a disposal.
I am not going to hold on to various wastes of oxygen like some hoarder of psychopaths. We don't need arkham asylum.
Riddle me this... you have the Joker as a thought experiment. Batman has brought him in after he has yet again escaped to kill a few hundred people. He's sitting there giggling to himself and generally being creepy. Do you really want to put him back into a mental health cell? Because in the real world... in the US... We'd kill the Joker. He'd get a trial and then be executed... if he made it that far. There's a good chance he'd be killed resisting arrest whether he surrendered or not. And is that a bad thing?
People seem to have a hard time accepting moral responsibility for extreme acts.
I find this attitude sad. There were men that were capable of dropping atomic bombs for the right reasons and sleeping like babies when they went home. The reality is that you have to do nasty things on occasion. Sometimes the toliet needs to be cleaned. Sometimes you have to deal with a lot of raw meat that is sort of slimy. Sometimes you need to fire an employee that is of no use to the company. Sometimes you need to put a psychopath down.
Sure, we're a big rich country... we could keep all the various psychopaths in little glass jars like some child collecting beetles. But why? They were convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt. You either take that as valid or the entire justice system is undermined.
And if it is valid, then you throw the switch that has that fellow riding the lightning without a second thought. If the system is flawed, then fix the system. Do not talk to me about the sentence if your real issue is that we're convicting innocent men.
... not within the context of the law or the society that does the execution.
You can externally question the ethics but internally within the society an execution is by definition not a murder.
For example, if I am a dictator and I decide to execute all my rivals. Those are not murders within the context of my society because as the ruling authority they were sanctioned by me.
However, as an external agency you can make your own judgements on the matter. They are not of course binding within that dictatorship.
Now if you wish to impose the supremacy of your ethical system on the US government in contravention of law, jurisprudence, democracy, the republic, etc... then understand that your attitude is inherently invalid in the context of that society. You are speaking as an outsider or alien with a perspective that is not especially germane to that society.
That said, if you'd like to advocate for such a position... let me hear it. I have heard no argument in favor of banning executions that wasn't some tautology about how killing is wrong because killing is wrong because killing is wrong.
This is irrational by definition. Killing is not only not inherently wrong but often much celebrated by every culture in the right circumstances. The only thing that changes from one culture to the next is who is killed and how they are killed. Different societies of course want their various enemies to die and they tend to have certain taboos about how someone is killed.
But all of that is arbitrary and various cultures each have their own views on the matter. To presume that your view is superior to all others sans some kind of logic... it is cultural imperialism on your part at the very least. This belief that everyone has to share your view on execution or they're bad... never mind that you can't articulate why it is bad in the first place.
As to nothing beneficial being achieved by killing someone... what is beneficial about keeping them alive?
As to your statement that you're comfortable with the courts making life and death choices... okay. Then we have nothing more to discuss on the issue. The courts are competent to execute. Next issue.
As to incarceration being less harmful, actually exile is less harmful. That was a very common punishment up to the city state period. I'm quite partial to it myself because it involves no long term responsibility for the criminal. You just walk him to the city gates and then tell him that if he is ever found again he will be killed on the spot. If he leaves the city and doesn't come back then that is that. Far less harmful than incarceration.
As to life time imprisonment versus killing... You imprison me and you steal my life. It is a bigger deal than I think you realize. If you're not comfortable making nasty choices then you have no business throwing people in jail for years on end either.
There is no way to do this without hurting people. There is no lesser evil. You either accept what you're doing or step down and let someone else take the responsibility.
You want me to do that for you? I'm happy to do that. You can hate me and say I'm evil if that helps you sleep. It means nothing to me. Some things have to be done. There is no good served by keeping a mass murderer alive in a jail cell, spending perhaps millions of dollars on his medical bills or whatever else. He isn't entitled to it.
here you say "but what if he is innocent"... I don't think you appreciate what the term "shadow of a doubt" means. When a court has determined that there is not a shadow of a doubt, then that is how I proceed. He has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. If that later turns out to be false we'll look into that. But I'm not assuming that every person convicted might actually be innocent. If I felt that way I wouldn't put them in jail in the first place.
I'm just going to underscore that point. If I felt there was a chance a given individual was not guilty... I would not punish them at all.
Choose. I don't feel comfortable putting them in jail if they're not guilty. If they are guilty though, then I'm going to treat them that way.
This is binary. Guilty or not guilty. Which is it?
As to reasons why I'd execute someone besides revenge? How about because keeping them alive serves no purpose? That's one of my primary reasons. I don't see the point. He's never getting out. He's guilty. All he's doing is wasting oxygen.
The fact that you're not quoting the text directly is the clearest admission possible that I'm right. What is remarkable to me is that you seem to think that denial is an effective rebuttal. By this logic you could argue the sun was made of cheese and simply hold your ground by refusing to accept any evidence or argument to the contrary.
Your position is idiotic. I know it. I assume you know it. What is rather odd is that you either aren't aware how obvious your stupidity is or you think it doesn't matter so long as you're a stubborn asshole about it...
I completely agree. I think I went so far as to say I'd approve on the spot executions of any executive that did such a thing. Just blow raspberry jam all over the walls and move on.
Okay? Is that enough for you? I fucking hate that shit as well. I've had the misfortune of having one of those phones as well. I don't really use FM radio but I'd like to be able to use it if it is already in my fucking phone. TOTALLY with you.
But just as it is a dick move to turn that thing off it is also a dick move to force people to put it in the phone.
I agree with you they shouldn't disable it if it is there already. HOWEVER if it isn't there at all... leave them alone.
No, they're just not murder. Whether or not anything is ethical or not is very complicated. When the police officer pulled me over at his speed trap to give me a ticket for 300 dollars for not noticing a sign came out of no where to drop the speed limit by 20 miles per hour... and for no reason... was that ethical or legitimate? I'm pretty sure I have to pay that ticket.
If you have a problem with the court system, then argue for judicial reform. However, that has NOTHING to do with the sentence. The sentence is valid if the court process was valid. If it isn't then the least of your worries are the handful of people we execute every year. You'd instead have to explain why EVERYTHING else the court system does is not also invalid?
Why is the court only wrong when it executes but not any other time? Your objection smacks of ideology and not reason.
Not at all, Dave. Let me ask you a question. Why are you feeding a convicted murderer that you will NEVER let out into the general public again?
See, you don't understand executions.
I don't understand life in prison. I don't get the point. If they're just going to sit in a cell for the rest of their natural lives, then why can't I put them down?
We're even giving them medical treatment to extend their lives for no reason. Some of these guys get organ transplants and expensive heart medication, etc. Why am I doing that?
I'm happy to give them first aid but for people in on a life sentence... why would I give them more than first aid? Why would I even give them food. I don't understand. The whole concept is baffling to me.
You people think I'm full of anger or want revenge or something. Nothing of the kind. I've no interest in their lives. They're done. Why am I paying to guard them or house them or do anything.
I could possibly accept exile for them if that were practical. Given modern transport it really isn't though. They could be back in whatever country almost immediately no matter how far you sent them away.
Did you ever see that movie "No Escape"... I'd accept that as a compromise. It has the virtue of not killing them and me not having to feed them.
Are you familiar with the movie? Great action movie if you haven't seen it. The concept is that there is a remote island in the future where they keep all the worst criminals. They just drop them off by helicopter and leave them. The island has gone all lord of the flies with cannibalistic psychopaths ruling the majority of the island.
There is some justice in psychopaths being forced to live a community of psychopaths without any sane moderation to contain their homicidal natures. The island in that movie was hell. Life was short, brutal, and miserable.
All of which is fine... I don't really care. My primary concern is that I don't have to worry about them. They go there, they eat each other, and I get to ignore them.
As to your religious views on executions, that's super but I don't care any more for that then I do about some other religious person's views on homosexuality.
Your religious or ideological views are fine. They're just opinions. I am under not obligation to take your opinions seriously or act upon them in law unless you can win the vote. Absent that, your ideological views are just that. If you want to talk about ideology we can do that. I am very happy to argue against your position on moral and ethical grounds if you like.
Furthermore, you used the word "murder" being wrong... murder by definition is always wrong. That's literally what murder means. It literally means bad or illegal or immoral killing.
The unloaded term is "killing" not murder. Is all killing wrong? I can't see how that makes any sense. Society wouldn't be possible without a ritualized system of killing.
First, we have various law breakers that have to be killed to be brought down. You can't even arrest them. So you don't try. You kill them.
Second, you have the various pissing contests between nations. Any society that thinks killing is wrong is going to find a slave collar slapped around their necks sooner or later.
Third, we have our executions. Imprisonment is nearly as good. You basically just disappear someone into concrete bunker forever. They might as well be dead.
As to believing that killing their citizenry is wrong even if they're mass murdering psychopaths that were given due process and convicted in a court of law.
That is your business. The courts either have the power to judge life and death or they don't. You appear to be more comfortable with what seems like hypocrisy to me. The courts officiate over life and death all the time with or without a death penalty. IF you're saying they are unsuitable to make such judgements then I question why they're doing it all the time.
You feel you have a right to lock me a box for 50 years but you don't have a right to shoot me? How do you figure that?
You say you can reverse an imprisonment... can you now? How do you give me back my 50 years? I'd like to see you do that.
As to how I justify killing someone... again... justify imprisoning someone for 50 years? Your position reads to me like childish squeamishness. I don't say that to offend you. Honestly. I am just telling you what you position looks like to me. That is full disclosure. I'm letting you peak inside my brain. That is what I see. You know how small children react around raw chicken? They say "ewww, its all pink and slimy!"... But they sure do like it when it is properly cooked and seasoned don't they?
So much of our society has become privileged and divorced from the real world. We have these unreasonable expectations and unreasonable aspirations that anyone that lives outside our bubble can only LAUGH at. Ask any culture outside of our privileged bubble what they think of this issue and they're going to come down the on the side of executions. And that isn't about revenge. It is about not needing half measures. You don't like cutting someone's throat. I get it. But that is squeamishness. You get over it. And then when the stars align... yeah, you run that knife from ear to ear. Same way you ring a chicken's neck. Same way you drive a bolt into cow's brain. Same way you drop cluster bombs on an enemy formation that is advancing on your position. You just do it or you sit down and let the adults handle it.
Here you're furious with me. I regret that. I don't know how else to express myself without putting your argument in those terms. That is what it looks like to me. Please contradict me if you think I got you wrong and know that I'm not mad at you or hate you or anything like that. I just think your position is naive and childish. Again... this isn't an insult. I'm just honestly explaining my position so we can bridge a mental divide here.:)
Slashdot Mirror
As to flame baits... I am internet fearless... so I don't care.
As to the ISS being useful... its purpose was to bridge relations with the Russians. It failed. Absent that we would not have built it at all.
As to shooting space junk, remind me why we need to put a space laser on the ISS and not just on anything at all? We could have a space junk shooting satellite. The Russians will accuse us of putting weapons in space but what is new.
As to the Russians not being able to put pressure on the US if we didn't make ourselves vulnerable to them... thank you for proving my fucking point. That is why I don't want to give them more leverage. They exploit EVERYTHING no matter how petty and rediculious.
Newsflash, the US doesn't actually care about the ISS. As you point out, we didn't really fund space exploration for awhile. Why was that? Because we had more pressing concerns.
If the Russians are going to exploit every moment of weakness to get something then they are terrible partners for ANYTHING.
This is right up there with that dumb idea to put a tunnel between Alaska and Siberia so we could have a transcontinental train.
No one is investing in SHIT to do with Russia because no one trusts them. Think about it. Russia sits between east asia and Europe. One of the busiest trade routes in the world. And what does everyone do? They bypass Russia by any means.
If Russia were at all truthworthy there would be a big freight train service from China to Europe. But instead, everything is loaded on to boats and taken by sea. Think of the trade Russia would get if the cargo ran through their country? Warehouses, factories, all sorts of infrastructure investment, lots of transport jobs. I mean... we're talking about total economic benefits into the hundreds of billions per year at the very least.
And Russia ruins any chance they'll have at getting any of that on a regular basis by being raging morons.
And before anyone says "oh the US isn't trustworthy either"... well then why is the US getting massive investment from all over the world as well as a huge capital flight from China AND Russia into the US? It must be because these powerful interests want to lose their money. Because if the US isn't a trustworthy investment then putting your money in the US is stupid. So no... the US is exceptionally trustworthy. That isn't saying the US is perfect... and all things are relative.
... They immediately break up again after the merger. They can swap bodily fluids or whatever gross thing conglomerates do when no one is watching. I won't peak or take pictures or put it up on the internet as revenge porn. But when they've got their hormones under control again, I want them separated off because we can't have just one fucking cable company in the US. It is already basically two for the whole country. That's pathetic. We should have a dozen at least. And they want to move it from two to one?
As I said... they can fool around for awhile if they want. We'll get them a room and everything. But we can't have just one cable company.
They're actually replacing most of those people fleeing with "undocumented" people.
The fiscal issue should be interesting. Also the politics should get funny at some point. The democrats think rampant immigration is good for them... they don't seem to grasp that if they lean too hard on the that demographic it will require first that they only put that demographic's candidates on the ballot. So all the old political families in California are going to be out on their ear.
And then the other issue is that the people from south of the border have very different sensibilities about a lot of things. They're very serious Catholics typically. That means they don't respond well to issues of homosexuality, the whole gay marriage thing, and other various issues. Also... because they're not white, they don't have white guilt. Which means you can't play identity politics against them if they don't do what you want them to do. And that is something the left relies upon very heavily to bolster any argument that isn't going well for them.
It will be interesting. I hope Cali pulls through. But it has to get a lot worse before it can get better.
I'm not putting space lasers on something the Russians can fuck with... At this point, I've gone full cold war on the Russians in my foreign policy thinking. I've had a few conversations with the Church of Putin and they're so fucking delusional that I have zero hope of a peaceful end to this crap. And that being the case, I don't want to give the russians any leverage on us what so ever.
I'm not really worried about the Russians doing anything to the laser. I'm more worried about us CARING about the ISS. The Russians have already attempted to use access to the ISS as leverage against us and that frankly just burns me on the whole project. Decommission it or ideally pawn it off on someone else. Maybe the Chinese want it? I don't care.
The ISS was a post cold war team building exercise between the US and the Russian Federation. And quite recently the US did a "trust fall" with the Russians and they said something to the effect of "we suggest the americans try trampolines to get into space"... Which means the team building exercise was a complete failure. And that means the ISS was a complete failure at its ACTUAL purpose.
The Russians are going back to their old ways. So the ISS is dead to me.
And that means I'm not putting anything of any value on it what so ever. I'm ready to deorbit it. The Russians can forge ahead with their own entirely independent space program with zero help from the US.
Well technically it makes it not a murder either. It makes it an execution.
Now you want to equate executions in the US with the Nazi gas chambers?
Really? *laughs*
Whatever, by this same logic all imprisonments are also invalid... there were a lot of people in concentration camps as well, remember? Your stupid nazi references would invalidate any state action. I mean, the nazis also arrested people and fined people. Are all arrests and fines fascistic?
Obviously not... neither are all executions. Give me a flying fucking break.
I am either confident enough to put someone down or I'm not confident enough to even lock them up.
You can't undermine the justice system without undermining the justice system. You're saying it is only shit in one situation and that is unsupportable. It is either shit in general or it isn't.
As to you saying you care, then we can ship our convicts to your country? Please say yes because we can start filling jumbo jets right now.
If not, then this is our affair thank you very much. I'm not feeding convicted mass murderers. They can ride the lightning.
As to your claim that 12 months is not enough time. That's all I'm giving you. Take it or leave it. You can't wait longer than that.
Guess I'm just going to have to live with you being outraged... Oh well.
As to you not turning over a man to be executed... whatever. If my country needs something from yours we have more than enough leverage to get what we need. I mean... if you want to play the who has a bigger dick game? I'm not especially interested in it. But you seem to think you have leverage on me because you keep saying "I won't extradite people". Well, fine. In most cases we won't care. In the event where we do, we'll have a private conversation with your people and work out an equitable compromise.
Generally the only thing we'd want that would rise to the level of a diplomatic incident would be information. So, we might bargain for the information which we can pay for by providing our own information about various things. Beyond that... you want to hold on to a murderer? Have fun with him. You can put him in charge of your kindergarteners for all I care.
As to what is and is not immoral... that is your opinion. I am already on record with the opinion that your moral stance is hypocritical and naive. It doesn't make sense. You're attempting to claim the system is unfair in one context that would naturally effect everything. If the justice system is unreliable then why are you imprisoning people falsely? You say it isn't the same thing but that is only your opinion. If you are falsely imprisoning me, falsely fining me, and falsely doing everything... the occasional false execution is a drop in the bucket when the vast majority of what you do is not an execution and equally likely if not more likely to be false.
For every person falsely executed how many people are falsely imprisoned? And how do you equate the value of one executed person with how ever many imprisoned people?
The ratio in the US between imprisoned to executed is thousands to one.
What percentage of people do you think are falsely executed? I'll let you cite a number. I'm going to then multiply that number by the ratio of imprisoned to executed people... and then I'm going to assume the numbers are higher with the imprisoned because the legal rigor is lower.
The number is going to be big enough that you're going to have a hard time justifying it.
But at the same time you're going to know you have no choice. It has to be done. You have to accept the system.
When OJ Simpson was acquitted you had three groups of people that had opinions about it.
Group one said he was innocent because he was black and the white man has it out for black people.
Group two said he was guilty because he had a load of circomstancial evidence on him and he ran from the scene and was acting crazy.
Group three said the jury did not find him guilty therefore he is not guilty.
Which of those groups do you think I fell into? ...
Group Three.
And that sword cuts both ways. Just as I will despite my better judgment say a man is innocent because a jury of his peers found him to be innocent, I will likewise hold a man as guilty if found guilty. If the jury votes for the death penalty, then not only am I willing to have the axe drop... the axe MUST drop. Justice must be done. The court has ruled. Execute the sentence.
As to life in prison being a lesser sentence that death... of course... that is why only the worst criminals get sentenced to death. Obviously. These are people that are beyond redemption. That is the point. A person that didn't go away for a capital crime might be redeemable. A capital offender though? There's no point.
Where on a continuum is "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?
As to capital punishment being too expensive, that is because they can appeal for ten million years. Have the execution one year after conviction unless enough evidence comes forward to call the initial trail into question.
Do that and the cost of execution will fall far below life in prison.
If you're in for life without parol you don't get all these appeals which is why it is cheaper. it is the LEGAL costs of the execution and not the execution itself.
What is more, the costs are only so high because the people opposed to it are basically trolling us by setting unreasonable standards to get the exact response from you that you are giving them.
They want to control your actions by trolling you. You don't stop trolls by giving them what they want. They're like fucking terrorists that instead of killing you annoy you. The worst thing you can do is give them what they want.
If these people want to have an HONEST debate about the issue in the houses of congress then we can do that. If they want to play a bunch of fucking games to try and get their way without actually carrying the argument then they can go fuck themselves with a rake.
... fewer people.
That is the big issue here. Even while they talk about water conservation they're still zoning more land for development. Still building more apartments. Still building more office parks. Still building stuff they can't provide water or power or transport for...
So why are we doing that?
Here is how we fix this issue. Link development to existing infrastructure. Lock California's development to the resources it can actually provide to residents. Then if people want to build something new, they FIRST have to get the infrastructure expanded.
The issue will solve itself quite quickly.
And LA didn't steal the water. It bought it. Yes, I know the people of Owens valley were very sad that the water all went away. It was bought and paid for. Get over it.
The old city fathers of Los Angeles wouldn't have let this happen to them. They took care of business. The existing leadership have their heads so far up their own asses they don't know what is going on anymore. It is sad watching them. They try to do good. They really do. But they can't. Too much corruption. Too many special interests. Too many people milking the system. They can't do anything. All the money and political will goes to graft. Nothing left for visionary urban planning. Nothing left to keep the city vibrant.
I was wondering when you'd show up. Did you get lonely when I crushed you in the last thread and stopped responding to you... again?
Well, darling... it is just marvelous knowing you're still following me about.
*kisses*
1. We don't imprison someone for life over a bar fight that went wrong. Your statement displays a painful amount of ignorance as to how the law works. I do not mean that as an insult... I am merely expressing my frustration with your own unawareness with how little you know.
For example we have many tiers of murder:
First you have manslaughter:
Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century B.C..[1]
The definition of manslaughter differs from place of jurisdiction. The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind, or the circumstances under which the killing occurred (mitigating factors). Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter; however, this is not the case in all jurisdictions.[2]
In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, Canada, and some Australian states, "adequate provocation" is a partial defense to a charge of murder, which, if accepted by the jury, would convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. In Australia, specifically New South Wales, manslaughter is a common law offence as it is not defined in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) under section 18(1)(b). [3]
Then you have third degree murder
Third degree is a murder that happens while you attempting to hurt someone but not actually kill them. Your bar fight would be a third degree murder or the very weakest possible kind.
Then you have second degree murder
Second degree tends to include crimes of passion. Getting really mad and in the spur of the moment killing someone on purpose. The husband or wife that walks in on their significant other cheating on them and attacks with intent to kill would be second degree.
Then you have first degree murder
First degree is premeditated cold methodical murder. This is where someone thought about it, did some planning, or did some seriously fucked up shit along the way that causes the courts to label the murders "aggravated" because they were especially nasty.
Of these FOUR types of killing only the last one is going to get you even considered for a death penalty. And even then, it tends to require that the incident be especially ruthless or horrible.
So no... no one is going to the gas chamber because of a bar fight unless the judge was a real piece of shit. Which is possible. But that is not how it typically works.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're saying... are you saying all courts throughout the world are illegitimate... besides Norway for some reason?
Fine... then you say the legal process is invalid and... anarchy.
See, I was right the first time... you people are so ideologically blinkered that you'll support a line of logic that undermines the entire government and society and civilization simply to attack capital punishment.
It is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face... or possibly your penis... something unpleasant. You can't attack capital punishment and JUST capital punishment by saying the courts suck. That undermines the courts in general.
Come on... Logic. Think it through.
As to keeping someone alive simply on the off chance that there was a shadow of a doubt... again, I'm not imprisoning people at all unless I have confidence in the system.
At all.
As to your belief that you're not comfortable with courts making life and death choices... long term imprisonment is a life and death choice. You're taking their life away and putting them in a cage.
If you don't have confidence that you were correct in convicting that person then you're an uncaring monster.
You either have confidence in the system or you don't.
There is no "maybe" option in a court of law. Not in the US and not in whatever country you're from. There is innocence and there is guilt.
That's it. End. Done. Period.
You convict or you don't.
If you convict, then you need to own it. If you don't then let him go.
As to you not liking the idea of exile... hey, you don't want me to kill the guy... I'm giving you the opportunity to have fun with him instead. You can put him in a prison cell if you want and feed him. Give him to me and if he did terrible things then there is a good chance I'm going to put him down. So... do you care about this precious human life enough to save it? Or just enough to attempt to make me feel badly about putting down a murderer. Because I won't feel bad. I don't value his life. He's a waste of resources.
As to it not being required to kill them... neither is it required to keep them alive.
As to capital punishment being too expensive, not really. It only expensive because the cases have about a million appeals and people on death row draw it out endlessly even if they're guilty as sin because it means they stay alive longer.
If you haven't figured it out in 12 months then you're doing it wrong. One year after the initial trial is concluded... and the execution happens. I'll wait 12 months AFTER conviction. That is generous and patient. I am agreeing to hold a man convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt for 12 months on the chance that some new evidence will come up. If you haven't found it in 12 months then its time for your last meal. The existing system is so expensive because sometimes these guys are in appeals for 10 years after conviction. That is fucking retarded. 10 years of appeals? Give me a fucking break.
As to the right to life being irrevocable... okay then where is the right for me to feed this person or shelter them? Or give them medical care? See, my response to your notion that I can't kill him because his life is sacred is that I'm going to put him on a plane and send him to your country. You can take care of him.
He will not eat my food. I could starve him death in a cell if you want... seems crueler than the other options but I'm not feeding him. He gets nothing from me. You say he is entitled to live... the problem is that he is not entitled to live in my society and I am not obligated to feed him. So how does he live when he can't be in my society and I don't have to feed him? Are mass murderers entitled to my food as well? Why do I have to help them live? These people killed people. You wish to permit them to become a further burden on our society? No. If you want them we could probably ship them to your country by the thousand. Have fun with them. There are more than a few of these people.
And of course if you doubt the accuracy of our justice system and think we convicted a bunch of innocent people then put them on your streets. Your funeral. ;-D Within 24 hours a few of them will be wearing some of your citizens skin for clothing... raping and murdering their way across the country.
And when you've come upon yet another child with its head cut off and jammed onto a spike... you might realize why I'm so comfortable putting these people down.
Contrary to what you hear from the media this is not something we do lightly in the US. We put people down that are monsters. Is the system perfect? Nothing is perfect. The vast overwhelming majority of them are monsters. I thin
Precisely. And if any of us have the right to question and ignore the law because we don't like it then what validity does the law have in any country?
Your point while valid is not relevant within the context of the host society. You need to make an argument that is relevant within our society and not presume to rewrite or nullify our laws from without.
Unless you have a big army you want to conquer us with over this issue... I mean, that was how we dealt with Saddam.
We said "hey saddam we don't like what you're doing" and he said "well its my country so I can do what I want"... and we said "oh really?"...
So... do you have a great big army to make me give a shit or not?
Because lets face it, you don't. And as you don't you're going to need to make an argument that has some relevance from WITHIN my society and not presume to judge me from without. I don't see why I need to care what you think. Your values and beliefs are just that... YOURS. They're not mine or everyone's or my society's. We don't really care what you think just because YOU think it.
How narcissistic are you that you think that just because you believe something every country on earth has to fall in line? Get over yourself.
As to the least you can do, the least you can do is have a justice system worth a damn.
Given your perspective, I don't see how you can convict anyone of anything. If I held your view, I'd have so little faith in the system that I'd just say we shouldn't have the trials at all. How can we trust them if they're constantly convicting innocent people and doubtless letting guilty people go all the time?
Either you have faith in the legal system or you don't.
Guilty or innocent is a BINARY solution set. There is no "maybe" option in it.
If you can't commit to that then the whole process if bullshit. We might as well just let all the doubtless innocent people out of jail right now, fire all the lawyers, fire all the judges, I'm not sure what the point of police are since they probably only exist to shoot random black people for no reason. And let the chips fall where they may.
Here you'll say I'm making an absurd argument. I'm not though... this is what we have left if the justice system falls apart.
Here is my core problem with your point. You're making what appears to me to be a dishonest argument.
You are saying that because the justice system is bullshit we can't give it the power to execute people. Then in every other situation you seem to be just fine with the bullshit nature of the justice system.
Stop right there. No. If it is not trust worthy to execute someone then I don't trust them to imprison someone either. If you're too incompetent to run a murder trial with execution as a sentence then you're too incompetent to run a murder trial with life in prison as a sentence.
It is a package deal. You can't say the justice system is JUST incompetent enough that they can't execute but totally competent to do the rest. That makes no fucking sense. If you can't be trusted to manage "no shadow of doubt" then you can't be trusted to do the rest.
The most disappointing aspect of this discussion is that I'm almost positive you're just using this "what about innocent people" argument as a ploy. I don't think you really are that worried about the integrity of the justice system. IF you were you'd be more inclined to rail against it in general rather than specifically on executions. I think you're using it as a ploy to argue against executions. And that's sad because I'd like to hear and contend with an honest argument rather than one cloaked in misinformation and half truths.
I am being completely straight with you. I feel we should execute people that have committed unforgivable crimes because they can't be permitted back into society and keeping them warehoused somewhere is a waste of resources.
That is literally why I feel the way I do. I also am utterly unburdened by your moral qualms about putting psychopaths down. I have no problem with it.
Imagine for the sake of argument that you felt the way I did... that you felt it was a waste of resources and you didn't especially feel any moral or ethical guilt at putting the a convicted murderer down.
Then imagine someone comes at you and hand wrings about how it is wrong to execute people.
This sounds very much like the vegan anti eating animals arguments. I'm going to eat bacon. It is going to happen. I'm also going to vote in favor of putting murderers down.
Not for revenge. I love that some of you think I want these people to suffer... If I had that intention then I'd be advocating torturing them. Do you people honestly think this is as nasty and wicked as I'm capable of being? The horrors I could unleash on someone under my power would probably cause you to lose your lunch.
I point that all out to make clear that I am NOT taking any revenge in putting them down. This is impersonal, clinical, cold. If I stroked my inner sadist then you'd know it. I can't decide if I'd go old fashioned with general dismemberment for shock and horror... or if I'd load the fellow up with psychotropics and break him and then turn him into something else just for the lolz.
Anyway... yeah... I'm not taking revenge. You would know it if I were. I'd either get medieval on the fellow or possibly Lewis Carroll on him.
It is always nice to know I'm not alone. I get dog piled by ideologues and trolls with some consistency.
I didn't say a trial was a punishment or a sentence.
As to your notion that I could give someone what they want by killing them... I can't speak to the sad delusions of maniacs.
Here is another way to think about executions... and it is largely how I think about them.
It is taking out the trash. It isn't about making them suffer. This new execution method for example is quite painless. The point of an execution is to not waste further energy on human trash. You kill them, throw out the corpse... move on. Here some fool will say "but they're human beings"... they were convicted in a court of law beyond a shadow of a doubt to have committed crimes worthy of execution. None but human garbage get that sentence. It is a disposal.
I am not going to hold on to various wastes of oxygen like some hoarder of psychopaths. We don't need arkham asylum.
Riddle me this... you have the Joker as a thought experiment. Batman has brought him in after he has yet again escaped to kill a few hundred people. He's sitting there giggling to himself and generally being creepy. Do you really want to put him back into a mental health cell? Because in the real world... in the US... We'd kill the Joker. He'd get a trial and then be executed... if he made it that far. There's a good chance he'd be killed resisting arrest whether he surrendered or not. And is that a bad thing?
People seem to have a hard time accepting moral responsibility for extreme acts.
I find this attitude sad. There were men that were capable of dropping atomic bombs for the right reasons and sleeping like babies when they went home. The reality is that you have to do nasty things on occasion. Sometimes the toliet needs to be cleaned. Sometimes you have to deal with a lot of raw meat that is sort of slimy. Sometimes you need to fire an employee that is of no use to the company. Sometimes you need to put a psychopath down.
Sure, we're a big rich country... we could keep all the various psychopaths in little glass jars like some child collecting beetles. But why? They were convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt. You either take that as valid or the entire justice system is undermined.
And if it is valid, then you throw the switch that has that fellow riding the lightning without a second thought. If the system is flawed, then fix the system. Do not talk to me about the sentence if your real issue is that we're convicting innocent men.
... not within the context of the law or the society that does the execution.
You can externally question the ethics but internally within the society an execution is by definition not a murder.
For example, if I am a dictator and I decide to execute all my rivals. Those are not murders within the context of my society because as the ruling authority they were sanctioned by me.
However, as an external agency you can make your own judgements on the matter. They are not of course binding within that dictatorship.
Now if you wish to impose the supremacy of your ethical system on the US government in contravention of law, jurisprudence, democracy, the republic, etc... then understand that your attitude is inherently invalid in the context of that society. You are speaking as an outsider or alien with a perspective that is not especially germane to that society.
That said, if you'd like to advocate for such a position... let me hear it. I have heard no argument in favor of banning executions that wasn't some tautology about how killing is wrong because killing is wrong because killing is wrong.
This is irrational by definition. Killing is not only not inherently wrong but often much celebrated by every culture in the right circumstances. The only thing that changes from one culture to the next is who is killed and how they are killed. Different societies of course want their various enemies to die and they tend to have certain taboos about how someone is killed.
But all of that is arbitrary and various cultures each have their own views on the matter. To presume that your view is superior to all others sans some kind of logic... it is cultural imperialism on your part at the very least. This belief that everyone has to share your view on execution or they're bad... never mind that you can't articulate why it is bad in the first place.
As to nothing beneficial being achieved by killing someone... what is beneficial about keeping them alive?
As to your statement that you're comfortable with the courts making life and death choices... okay. Then we have nothing more to discuss on the issue. The courts are competent to execute. Next issue.
As to incarceration being less harmful, actually exile is less harmful. That was a very common punishment up to the city state period. I'm quite partial to it myself because it involves no long term responsibility for the criminal. You just walk him to the city gates and then tell him that if he is ever found again he will be killed on the spot. If he leaves the city and doesn't come back then that is that. Far less harmful than incarceration.
As to life time imprisonment versus killing... You imprison me and you steal my life. It is a bigger deal than I think you realize. If you're not comfortable making nasty choices then you have no business throwing people in jail for years on end either.
There is no way to do this without hurting people. There is no lesser evil. You either accept what you're doing or step down and let someone else take the responsibility.
You want me to do that for you? I'm happy to do that. You can hate me and say I'm evil if that helps you sleep. It means nothing to me. Some things have to be done. There is no good served by keeping a mass murderer alive in a jail cell, spending perhaps millions of dollars on his medical bills or whatever else. He isn't entitled to it.
here you say "but what if he is innocent"... I don't think you appreciate what the term "shadow of a doubt" means. When a court has determined that there is not a shadow of a doubt, then that is how I proceed. He has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. If that later turns out to be false we'll look into that. But I'm not assuming that every person convicted might actually be innocent. If I felt that way I wouldn't put them in jail in the first place.
I'm just going to underscore that point. If I felt there was a chance a given individual was not guilty... I would not punish them at all.
Choose. I don't feel comfortable putting them in jail if they're not guilty. If they are guilty though, then I'm going to treat them that way.
This is binary. Guilty or not guilty. Which is it?
As to reasons why I'd execute someone besides revenge? How about because keeping them alive serves no purpose? That's one of my primary reasons. I don't see the point. He's never getting out. He's guilty. All he's doing is wasting oxygen.
Hmm... exactly do you make that argument?
I don't see your logic. Explain it please in detail... you've made an error there. Lay your thinking out so that we can find it and correct it.
We were talking about the effect of a trial on the context of an act.
You're not changing the subject to something else. You need to substantiate your argument more clearly.
The fact that you're not quoting the text directly is the clearest admission possible that I'm right. What is remarkable to me is that you seem to think that denial is an effective rebuttal. By this logic you could argue the sun was made of cheese and simply hold your ground by refusing to accept any evidence or argument to the contrary.
Your position is idiotic. I know it. I assume you know it. What is rather odd is that you either aren't aware how obvious your stupidity is or you think it doesn't matter so long as you're a stubborn asshole about it...
Either way, you're a retard. Next issue.
I completely agree. I think I went so far as to say I'd approve on the spot executions of any executive that did such a thing. Just blow raspberry jam all over the walls and move on.
Okay? Is that enough for you? I fucking hate that shit as well. I've had the misfortune of having one of those phones as well. I don't really use FM radio but I'd like to be able to use it if it is already in my fucking phone. TOTALLY with you.
But just as it is a dick move to turn that thing off it is also a dick move to force people to put it in the phone.
I agree with you they shouldn't disable it if it is there already. HOWEVER if it isn't there at all... leave them alone.
No, they're just not murder. Whether or not anything is ethical or not is very complicated. When the police officer pulled me over at his speed trap to give me a ticket for 300 dollars for not noticing a sign came out of no where to drop the speed limit by 20 miles per hour... and for no reason... was that ethical or legitimate? I'm pretty sure I have to pay that ticket.
If you have a problem with the court system, then argue for judicial reform. However, that has NOTHING to do with the sentence. The sentence is valid if the court process was valid. If it isn't then the least of your worries are the handful of people we execute every year. You'd instead have to explain why EVERYTHING else the court system does is not also invalid?
Why is the court only wrong when it executes but not any other time? Your objection smacks of ideology and not reason.
Not at all, Dave. Let me ask you a question. Why are you feeding a convicted murderer that you will NEVER let out into the general public again?
See, you don't understand executions.
I don't understand life in prison. I don't get the point. If they're just going to sit in a cell for the rest of their natural lives, then why can't I put them down?
We're even giving them medical treatment to extend their lives for no reason. Some of these guys get organ transplants and expensive heart medication, etc. Why am I doing that?
I'm happy to give them first aid but for people in on a life sentence... why would I give them more than first aid? Why would I even give them food. I don't understand. The whole concept is baffling to me.
You people think I'm full of anger or want revenge or something. Nothing of the kind. I've no interest in their lives. They're done. Why am I paying to guard them or house them or do anything.
I could possibly accept exile for them if that were practical. Given modern transport it really isn't though. They could be back in whatever country almost immediately no matter how far you sent them away.
Did you ever see that movie "No Escape"... I'd accept that as a compromise. It has the virtue of not killing them and me not having to feed them.
Are you familiar with the movie? Great action movie if you haven't seen it. The concept is that there is a remote island in the future where they keep all the worst criminals. They just drop them off by helicopter and leave them. The island has gone all lord of the flies with cannibalistic psychopaths ruling the majority of the island.
There is some justice in psychopaths being forced to live a community of psychopaths without any sane moderation to contain their homicidal natures. The island in that movie was hell. Life was short, brutal, and miserable.
All of which is fine... I don't really care. My primary concern is that I don't have to worry about them. They go there, they eat each other, and I get to ignore them.
As to your religious views on executions, that's super but I don't care any more for that then I do about some other religious person's views on homosexuality.
Your religious or ideological views are fine. They're just opinions. I am under not obligation to take your opinions seriously or act upon them in law unless you can win the vote. Absent that, your ideological views are just that. If you want to talk about ideology we can do that. I am very happy to argue against your position on moral and ethical grounds if you like.
Furthermore, you used the word "murder" being wrong... murder by definition is always wrong. That's literally what murder means. It literally means bad or illegal or immoral killing.
The unloaded term is "killing" not murder. Is all killing wrong? I can't see how that makes any sense. Society wouldn't be possible without a ritualized system of killing.
First, we have various law breakers that have to be killed to be brought down. You can't even arrest them. So you don't try. You kill them.
Second, you have the various pissing contests between nations. Any society that thinks killing is wrong is going to find a slave collar slapped around their necks sooner or later.
Third, we have our executions. Imprisonment is nearly as good. You basically just disappear someone into concrete bunker forever. They might as well be dead.
As to believing that killing their citizenry is wrong even if they're mass murdering psychopaths that were given due process and convicted in a court of law.
That is your business. The courts either have the power to judge life and death or they don't. You appear to be more comfortable with what seems like hypocrisy to me. The courts officiate over life and death all the time with or without a death penalty. IF you're saying they are unsuitable to make such judgements then I question why they're doing it all the time.
You feel you have a right to lock me a box for 50 years but you don't have a right to shoot me? How do you figure that?
You say you can reverse an imprisonment... can you now? How do you give me back my 50 years? I'd like to see you do that.
As to how I justify killing someone... again... justify imprisoning someone for 50 years? Your position reads to me like childish squeamishness. I don't say that to offend you. Honestly. I am just telling you what you position looks like to me. That is full disclosure. I'm letting you peak inside my brain. That is what I see. You know how small children react around raw chicken? They say "ewww, its all pink and slimy!"... But they sure do like it when it is properly cooked and seasoned don't they?
So much of our society has become privileged and divorced from the real world. We have these unreasonable expectations and unreasonable aspirations that anyone that lives outside our bubble can only LAUGH at. Ask any culture outside of our privileged bubble what they think of this issue and they're going to come down the on the side of executions. And that isn't about revenge. It is about not needing half measures. You don't like cutting someone's throat. I get it. But that is squeamishness. You get over it. And then when the stars align... yeah, you run that knife from ear to ear. Same way you ring a chicken's neck. Same way you drive a bolt into cow's brain. Same way you drop cluster bombs on an enemy formation that is advancing on your position. You just do it or you sit down and let the adults handle it.
Here you're furious with me. I regret that. I don't know how else to express myself without putting your argument in those terms. That is what it looks like to me. Please contradict me if you think I got you wrong and know that I'm not mad at you or hate you or anything like that. I just think your position is naive and childish. Again... this isn't an insult. I'm just honestly explaining my position so we can bridge a mental divide here. :)
See, smiley emoticon.
As to absolute bullshit,
a). I don't understand how killin
First off, a kangaroo court is a slang term for a fixed/unfair/illegitimate/unethical court.
Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
As to the rest, I'm going to let you recalculate your position now that you understand what I was talking about.
Read my previous post this time understanding what a kangaroo court means. :D