[DanDaMan]

Here Is the Double Standard Liberals have on Execution and Life, as I see it...

Some Modern Liberals can validate, for example, executing a child killer that has a gun to the head of a child by SWAT snipers but not execute a different man for already taking the life of a child. Ergo they have a double standard for life.

Or they come off as total amoral innocent life hating monsters for taking the position that SWAT should just let a child die at the hands of a killer and then let the killer live.

Comments?

[The Clockwork Rat]

Or the act of prevention is distinct from the act of punishment/rehabilitation. See my reply in the other thread.

[Genghis Khan]

Some Modern Liberals can validate, for example, executing a child killer that has a gun to the head of a child by SWAT snipers but not execute a different man for already taking the life of a child. Ergo they have a double standard for life.

When you're typing these sentences, is your brain still functioning or are you in some sort of a Glenn Beck induced trance?

Your example does not constitute double standard. It's no where near double standard. it's not in the same galaxy as double standard.

There is no logical comparison that can be made between preventing a crime from happening and determining the punishment for a crime that has already happened. None. At all. In any way, shape or form.

I mean Jesus fuckin' christ Dan... for once in your life, think before you write.

[DanDaMan]

There is no logical comparison that can be made between preventing a crime from happening and determining the punishment for a crime that has already happened. None. At all. In any way, shape or form.

In the context of this thread... define for us what crime is being prevented and then why I am wrong?

[The Clockwork Rat]

You are the OP, you take the argument forwards for once, instead of making false conjectures from other peoples' comments.

[Cartertonian]

Rearrange these words into a well-known phrase or saying:

hiding - on - a - nothing - to - are - you...

DanDaMan is perpetually stuck on 'send'.

[hip hop bunny hop]

When you're typing these sentences, is your brain still functioning or are you in some sort of a Glenn Beck induced trance?

DanDaMan is Glenn Beck. Pay attention, dude. See, Glenn posts something here, and if it offends the sensibilities of "the left", he then put it on his talk show, between segments of frog killing.

[Lightman]

While I am not opposed to the death penalty, Dandaman is wrong and illogical as usual. Most liberals are utilitarians to some degree (most people are to whatever degree or another utilitarians, whether they are well versed enough in ethical philosophy to understand that or not. I am not, however). Killing a man who is currently threatening the life of another is morally justifiable under utilitarianism because of the idea of social utility. The utility of the innocents surviving outweighs the pain caused by killing the criminal. In the case of the death penalty, killing the criminal or not simply causes pain, as the utility of the innocents is not regained through the killing of the criminal.

Besides, the majority of American liberals, depending on how you define the term, are not anti-death penalty.

[DanDaMan]

The utility of the innocents surviving outweighs the pain caused by killing the criminal. In the case of the death penalty, killing the criminal or not simply causes pain, as the utility of the innocents is not regained through the killing of the criminal.

"Utility"... nice euphemism for devaluing human LIFE.
Also, your last sentence is concrete proof that someone who slaughters innocent children, for example, is worth more than the children he killed. IE "monsters" have more value than good, innocent people.
That is a perversion of justice and value of life taken.

[The Clockwork Rat]

You are the OP, you take the argument forwards for once, instead of making false conjectures from other peoples' comments.

...and I repeat.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
There is no logical comparison that can be made between preventing a crime from happening and determining the punishment for a crime that has already happened. None. At all. In any way, shape or form.

What is SWAT protecting that justifies execution? LIFE.
The value of LIFE does not change after the murderer takes it.
Or in your world is there a double standard on the value of life?

[Genghis Khan]

What is SWAT protecting that justifies execution? LIFE.
The value of LIFE does not change after the murderer takes it.

It sounds to me as if you're trying to convince yourself. Everyone who has responded in this thread has said you're wrong, and yet you continue to dig into your ideological foxhole, refusing to admit your obvious mistake.

I'll explain it one last time. I'm sure it won't help and I'm sure you'll say that everyone else is wrong and that you're right and that democrats want more death and blah blah blah... but I'll do it anyway.

If someone's life is in danger, steps must be taken to protect that life against the one who's threatening to take it. However, if SWAT, as you say, were not there to stop the crime from happening and a person has already been killed, there's no life left to protect.

At that point, killing the person who did it accomplishes nothing. It doesn't bring the dead back. It's over. You're just adding to the killing.

If your reaction to this is: "You proved that the democratic party is the party of death" or something like that, spare me.

[DanDaMan]

If someone's life is in danger, steps must be taken to protect that life against the one who's threatening to take it. However, if SWAT, as you say, were not there to stop the crime from happening and a person has already been killed, there's no life left to protect.

You have a double standard on the value of life when you execute to protect but not when it's stolen.
You are also being hypocritical if you can allow executions based on the threat of murder and not for the actual murder.

[The Clockwork Rat]

@ Genghis Khan

Just give up. It's like talking to a broken record.

[kingbee]

Except it's hard when people like this keep posting the same tripe again and again.

[Genghis Khan]

Just give up. It's like talking to a broken record.

Or Glenn Beck...

[William_H_Dougherty]

Here Is the Double Standard Liberals have on Execution and Life, as I see it...

Some Modern Liberals can validate, for example, executing a child killer that has a gun to the head of a child by SWAT snipers but not execute a different man for already taking the life of a child. Ergo they have a double standard for life.

They would argue that the former is a preventative measure (i.e. that you can kill to prevent someone from killing), while the second is vengence (i.e. you kill someone for the sake of killing them).

Myself, I have trouble with the practicality of the death penalty, I'm not really against capital punishment in theory. The unfortunate reality is, as much as I like and appreciate the police, they have some notoriously bad practices when conducting investigations (especially in precincts which lack enough funding). The result is more innocent people in jail than I think any of us will like to admit.

It is hard for me to be an advocate such a permanent punishment when it would mean some innocent people dying.

That is my reasoning for the above. I'm not a Liberal but I would agree with them on this for different reasons.

- WHD

[Huntster]

They would argue that the former is a preventative measure (i.e. that you can kill to prevent someone from killing), while the second is vengence (i.e. you kill someone for the sake of killing them).

Unless, in your second case, the person is an abortionist who we all know will continue killing fetuses. Then the killing might be viewed as an attempt to stop that abortionist from killing.

The same can hold true for a criminal who has been released from prison after committing heinous crimes in the past. Unable to trust the state to keep the person incarcerated for the safety of the public, society might decide it's safer simply to execute such people in order to ensure they cannot kill again.

Myself, I have trouble with the practicality of the death penalty, I'm not really against capital punishment in theory. The unfortunate reality is, as much as I like and appreciate the police, they have some notoriously bad practices when conducting investigations (especially in precincts which lack enough funding). The result is more innocent people in jail than I think any of us will like to admit.

I've been to jail. I don't think there are lots of innocent people in jail. Indeed, I think there are too many guilty people in society that need to be jailed.

However, I tend to be opposed to the death penalty. I think people deserve the opportunity for expiation. A person can achieve good things in jail.

However, government does a very poor job of "corrections". The first failure of government is maintaining order in prison. Secondly, the system lets too many recidivist criminals free. Who among us don't get infuriated when an ex-con murders or rapes somebody, or both?

It is hard for me to be an advocate such a permanent punishment when it would mean some innocent people dying.

Agreed, but it's also difficult to read about ex-cons on sprees of violence.

Like this.

[William_H_Dougherty]

Unless, in your second case, the person is an abortionist who we all know will continue killing fetuses. Then the killing might be viewed as an attempt to stop that abortionist from killing.

The same can hold true for a criminal who has been released from prison after committing heinous crimes in the past. Unable to trust the state to keep the person incarcerated for the safety of the public, society might decide it's safer simply to execute such people in order to ensure they cannot kill again.

Yes, but if you do consider murder to be a crime, then the person killing the abortionist or the criminal is still guilty and deserves to go to jail. You cannot have law and order with people running around taking the law into their own hands. Of course, the solution to this is a better functioning law and order system.

I've been to jail. I don't think there are lots of innocent people in jail. Indeed, I think there are too many guilty people in society that need to be jailed.

However, I tend to be opposed to the death penalty. I think people deserve the opportunity for expiation. A person can achieve good things in jail.

However, government does a very poor job of "corrections". The first failure of government is maintaining order in prison. Secondly, the system lets too many recidivist criminals free. Who among us don't get infuriated when an ex-con murders or rapes somebody, or both?

I think we can get into a debate about "how many" represents "too much".

I also think some people are beyond "expiation". Either they can't, or they don't deserve it. There was a horrific serious of crimes here in Canada, perpetrated by rapist/murderer named Paul Bernardo. If you want to feel really sick to your stomach, look him up on wikipedia.

He and his wife documented their atrocities. I see no reason for him to be alive. There isn't ANY doubt, let alone reasonable doubt for his crimes. His "wife" aswell, which I'm soooooo happy she was able to go to a decent Canadian University while in prison.

Agreed, but it's also difficult to read about ex-cons on sprees of violence.

Very.

- WHD

[Huntster]

Huntster wrote:
Unless, in your second case, the person is an abortionist who we all know will continue killing fetuses. Then the killing might be viewed as an attempt to stop that abortionist from killing.

The same can hold true for a criminal who has been released from prison after committing heinous crimes in the past. Unable to trust the state to keep the person incarcerated for the safety of the public, society might decide it's safer simply to execute such people in order to ensure they cannot kill again.


Yes, but if you do consider murder to be a crime, then the person killing the abortionist or the criminal is still guilty and deserves to go to jail. You cannot have law and order with people running around taking the law into their own hands.

I agree, but to a point. I believe my experiences might shed light on that position.

I was a participant in the activity known as (the original) Operation Rescue in the 1980's. The goal of the activity was to civilly disobey trespass law, sit or otherwise block all entrances to abortion clinics in the early morning so access was cut off, and have counselors ready on the public property nearby (street/sidewalk) to offer non-lethal alternatives to clients arriving that day for their abortion procedures.

We had a legal defense team with the goal of defending the participants from violating trespass law with the defense of necessity. This valid defense holds that the violation of law committed with the intent of avoiding a greater evil is just. IOW, trespassing in order to save a human life is a valid criminal defense.

And, sure enough, on one morning that we did this, a lady arriving for an abortion took our organizations offer of a good home for her unborn child, and thus brought the child to birth. Thus, we indeed save a human life by committing the misdemeanor of criminal trespass. We even had the mother of the child ready to testify and had a photo of the child as evidence.

Now would you like to guess how that defense went in court?

I've been to jail. I don't think there are lots of innocent people in jail. Indeed, I think there are too many guilty people in society that need to be jailed.

However, I tend to be opposed to the death penalty. I think people deserve the opportunity for expiation. A person can achieve good things in jail.

However, government does a very poor job of "corrections". The first failure of government is maintaining order in prison. Secondly, the system lets too many recidivist criminals free. Who among us don't get infuriated when an ex-con murders or rapes somebody, or both?

I think we can get into a debate about "how many" represents "too much".

I'm sure we could.

Suffice it to say that I was in jail with a man who was sentenced to 9 months for pushing an old aggressor back (as the old man, a retired cop, was pushing the "criminal"), and when the old man fell and shattered his elbow on the curb, my jail mate's fate was sealed. The old man was a security guard at the gate of a gated community that my jail-mate was visiting and trying to call his friend to allow access. There were words exchanged, which led to a shoving match, which ended up with a 9 month stretch.

Speeding or even a distraction can cause a fatal auto accident and a prison term.

"It can't happen to me"?

I'm here to tell you, it most certainly can. We are all a single second away from prison.

I also think some people are beyond "expiation". Either they can't, or they don't deserve it. There was a horrific serious of crimes here in Canada, perpetrated by rapist/murderer named Paul Bernardo. If you want to feel really sick to your stomach, look him up on wikipedia.

I fully agree that many are beyond redemption. I can assure you, I literally felt the evil in the atmosphere inside prison.

However, if "life in prison" really means life in prison, society is somewhat safe. If murderers and rapists are released as a matter of course, we will continue to be victims of their evil.

He and his wife documented their atrocities. I see no reason for him to be alive. There isn't ANY doubt, let alone reasonable doubt for his crimes. His "wife" aswell, which I'm soooooo happy she was able to go to a decent Canadian University while in prison.

I oppose buying post-secondary credits for prisoners in prison. I oppose most TV in prison (only the news and educational documentaries should be shown in prison). I oppose access to telephones in prison. Give them plenty of writing material. I oppose tobacco in prison. I oppose the guards allowing some prisoners to victimize others. There should be no more "chances" for prisoners. If you commit a murder in prison (another prisoner or a guard) and are convicted (and you should be because the place should be covered by cameras 100%), you should be taken out into the yard and be the main event for an execution by hanging or firing squad while the rest of the prison population is in attendance.