You have an Internet connection, right? Then why don't you read up on the subject, before airing easy opinions like the one above? For once, this subject is about life or death. Give it some serious thought. (At the very least, when it's election time).
Actually you'd be reading the book of Romans. I think the 'interpretation' is pretty straightforward on that one.
Exactly how does a retributive form of justice make a civilisation barbaric? I'm not talking about torture or abuse, just imprisonment and/or execution. I don't see anything barbaric about providing basic food and shelter to a criminal.
Ah. I see we've dropped into the realm of personal abuse. Nice. It's especially refreshing to find moderators encouraging this behaviour.
"Basic food and shelter"? A prison isn't a B&B. It's about taking away someone's freedom, and that causes suffering. If that suffering is your sole goal of imprisonment, then your view of punishment is a bit... outdated.
I'm still wondering how you can concede that abuse is barbaric, but maintain that execution is not.
Didn't look like personal abuse to me. More like non-personal irony. (Unless you hate to get coffee in your sinuses )
So if I wrote "Weird, Canadians are usually not dumb. " in response to one of your posts (or a comment on one of your posts) you wouldn't be offended?
Outdated it may be, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Criminal acts require punishment, otherwise the justice system is meaningless. How can you punish someone without causing them some degree of 'suffering'?
I don't call a quick death barbaric. I must admit that I'm a little uncomfortable with the use of the electric chair as a method of execution, but I don't even see that in the same league as sustained abuse.
Nope. Mostly because I don't give a toss what "you" think, for instance. ('You' is in quotes because I'm not singling you out, I'm making a statement on the way I perceive things.) However, if you said that in reply to something I said, that would be a personal attack (saying that I am dumb as I would be the anomaly there). I still wouldn't be offended, though, as per my comment above.
What Kev said was in response to someone else's comment on having a 'wacky' view of the bible. He made a generalized comment that Religious people (specifically Christian denominations) are not rational thinkers anyways. That is not a personal attack, that's more of a communal attack. While I know Kev shares my slighted view of religion and those who follow it, I'm sure the comment was made in jest (at least a little) anyways.
Of course, I agree with Kev on the point that religious people are not rational thinkers; believing in 'miracles' is not rational thought by any stretch of the imagination. Take that as a negative if you wish, but it's true. Furthermore, if you take offense to someone making a quick comment like that (whether in jest or in ernest is irrelevant) than you must have your own suspicions of your beliefs; you don't whole-heartedly believe them. Or maybe I'm just a callous jerk... that's how I see it, though.
I've always said it should be Human Privileges, and if you commit crimes you give up your privileges. No one has a right to anything, it is a privilege.
Have you not seen the fame the parents have received, mingling with celebs, meeting the pope, an extended holiday funded by governments and donations. They are living a life of luxury, I mean they made a statement saying they are "heartened" that they are not a suspect.
"I don't recall the philosopher that this, uhh.. philosophy, was from, though."
edit: err.... post revoked. this won't make sense now...
I just hope it doesn't turn into another Azaria Chamberlain type case, which it appears to be heading. Armchair executioners will be salivating over this.
In all honesty, my little snipe at christianity felt wrong when I typed it, but I submitted it for humour purposes (and at least one person enjoyed it, and that is my sole goal in life - to entertain at least one person). Still, I feel like it was a bit of a cheap shot, and I appreciate it may have offended some people, but I don't feel I ought to apologise for it necessarily. Believing in... anything being governed by some eternal invisible supreme being cannot be described as rational thought, and so despite the inferred (intended, to be honest) sentiment in my post, the literal meaning of it is pretty reasonable.
Like I've said before, I have lost patience with religion. If people want to believe in a bearded man in the sky who invented the universe then fair enough, but there is no compulsion for me to "respect" that belief, given that - in essence - it's a crock of shit.
There are a few people I've met who are religious/spiritual who have told me that they aren't rational, and proudly so. From there Kev's post could be seen in a light of not even being a snipe, but simply a statement of fact that religious people (well some of them anyway) don't consider rationality to be all that really important. It's pretty hard to rationalise God, but if you truly believe, then why would you have to? I find the bible to be a surreal book, and many of the acts in it extremely irrational, atleast to modern sensibilities. It all seems to be in order though for the people who believe in it.
Hmmm... OK I went to the the web site. and read "his" version of the story.
First, there's no double jepordy there. It's only double jeapardy if you get convicted of the crime and charged for it again. And that's not what happened. An appeals court threw out the conviction, thus meaning a new trail. Also, he's seems really happy to admit to the robberies he was commiting with this group, yet all of the sudden not a part of the homicide. As if he thinks he can choose which crime he should be guilty of during the crime spree. What if one of those robberies that he freely admits to went bad? Would he be "innocent" of that one too? Please..... No sympathy here from what I read. Are you happy now?
Well, just because he committed other crimes, doesn't mean that he was responsible for the crime in question. Those other robberies didn't go bad, no one was killed, so you cannot punish someone with death for something you prejudicially think they might be capable of. No one is saying he is innocent, they are saying that as there is reasonable doubt as to his responsibility for this crime, it would be abhorrent for him not to receive a re-trial. Plus the death penalty is wrong and no one deserves to die etc..
It is quite annoying that in court truth does not matter, only how well you state your view (well that means how good layer you get).
I'm really not against death sentence as there are too crazy shit that don't deserve to live easy life with my tax money.
For example, think if you had a daugther and some crazy with aids would rape her and eat pieces from her leg, now would you say that it is okay for that kind of person to live in jail and later as a free man without doing work single day in his whole life?
That is however how things are in here and certainly would see some forced working or if that is not going to happen then death sentence for quite many sick bastards, even there are those known problems.
Not sure if it was mentioned earlier - didn't see anything in a search so: This video might be Michale Moore, for whom I don't have much respect, but it does have a point (and is quite funny in a rather dark way). It's about when George W was governor of Texas and the differences in 2 states (TX vs FL with GW's bro behind the wheel) on the death penalty.
Kinda reminds me what I had read about the death penalty in late 18th century England - at it's zenith 220 different crimes were punishable by death. There were so many executions it was a daily* spectacle and even attracted road-side vendors.
* actually - ~7000 executions in a 60 year span. That was roughly an average of 117 executions a year.
Yes they do. I brought up the finding your daughter laying on the side of the road dead after being abused and the consensus was that was ok that the person go to jail, inevitably to be let go years later as a free man because that is what does happen.
Someone takes someone elses life away and that person deserves to live, at our expense. That is the consensus I find here. The rights of the victim is thrown out the window in any discussion like this over the rights of the criminal/murderer.
"Oh poor Jim! They found his wife finally, cut up into little pieces in his neighbor's freezer! What? The neighbor is sentenced to death? Now that's inhumane! Oh poor neighbor! I can't believe they can do that, what about his rights as a human being! I feel sorry for the neighbor!"
If the victim wants the criminal dead, how is he any better than the criminal? Civilisation is all about rising above basic hormonal behaviour to create a better place to live, and as such there's no room for revenge killing in a civilised society.
)
