- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Debate... Zach v. Draconian Sanctions Topic: Cap Pun
Posted on 3/13/14 at 1:43 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 3/13/14 at 1:43 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
in those instances, even the civil war, the state was not murdering it's own citizens, it was murdering citizens of other nations.
2. responses:
a. saying that the civil war murders is OK because it was our own nation is irrelevant. The state murdered to abolish slavery.
b. So, why is the state murdering Germans and Japanese OK?
quote:
Okay so by that rationale are we also going to say the proper response to someone stealing your property would be for the government to show up and steal some of that perpetrators property as well?
They already do that. It's called Restitution. Are sure you're a lawyer?
quote:
and yes i would have sentenced him to life in prison.
The souls of six million Jews don't like that form of 'justice'. Hell, long after WWII we executed Eichmann. And Israel had a Cap Pun ban. They made an exception for him.
quote:
Well okay but even then i just don't think it's a good policy to be executing people when there is a good reason to doubt their guilt. Are you saying that's what we should be doing? Would you get rid of the reasonable doubt standard for convictions? I'm seriously asking here because your post doesn't make it clear.
You are avoiding the topic. We're not talking about reasonable doubt. We're talking about a slam dunk. Fifty people saw the murder. We have it on tape. Do you still oppose the death penalty in that scenario?
quote:
what if, for whatever reason, there is no DNA sample in a particular case? Would you be ok with a death sentence there?
Sure. There is a lot more evidence involved in a murder case than DNA. If I took a gun and blew your brains out today and then bragged about it at Starbucks there would be none of my DNA at the crime scene.
quote:
Alright so if it's so much more likely already anyway then why don;t we just get rid of the DP altogether?
Two responses:
a. I've long advocated for caps on appeals. If you can't prove it in two years, you get executed.
b. Cost... public defenders keep getting paid for 20 years because none of them want a client to actually die. It ruins their reputation as a criminal defense attorney.
3
Posted on 3/13/14 at 1:45 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:quote:
b. The right/libertarian believes in justice and ownership of self. When you murder me you deprive me of primary ownership of self. The only just recompense is denial of the murderers ownership of self. Cap Pun.
Okay so by that rationale are we also going to say the proper response to someone stealing your property would be for the government to show up and steal some of that perpetrators property as well?
Incorrect. A life taken cannot be returned, property can. If the property cannot be returned the remedy that happens every day is monetary recompense for the value of the lost property (even someone whose total legal wisdom comes just from watching Judge Judy knows this).
Posted on 3/13/14 at 1:47 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
already getting into using this kind of language, uh?
What kind of language? The whole premise of this thread is that you have rightly been accused of being horrible at responding to logical argumentation.
You challenged me to a test. I'm doing it. I can't lift 300 pounds on the bench press. You can't argue with logic. I'm not an offensive lineman but you are a lawyer. I would seek another trade if I were you.
Posted on 3/13/14 at 1:48 pm to Zach
quote:
Zach
So you are just answering the responses you have a rebuttal to?
quote:
I have 3 responses to that. Please deal with all of them:
This post was edited on 3/13/14 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 3/13/14 at 1:48 pm to Draconian Sanctions
#1 - so if the state wasn't involved you'd be OK with it? Government is irrelavent to the question and you are presenting a 'No True Scotsman' argument re your "people on the right side of the aisle". We deserve better than #1
#2 - valid but what about CP for confessed or witnessed crimes? This seems to me to be a valid argument to restrict the practice but not to show why it is wrong. We deserve better than #2
#3 - assumption that the purpose of death penalty is deterrence, maybe it's justice. This argument seems to be missing the point and we deserve better.
#4a - "The death penalty is ultimate act of vengeance. Is this something that we want the state to be involved in?" - See point #1
#4b - "should victims really be the ones we're listening to when doling out sentences?" - Actually yes, they are the ones harmed not "The State" or "The People".
#4c - "How is that equitable with the concept of judicial justice, where both sides are supposed to be given fair treatment?" - I thought we were talking about sentencing here - not trying the case.
BTW - I'm against the death penalty except in the most obvious and severe cases.
#2 - valid but what about CP for confessed or witnessed crimes? This seems to me to be a valid argument to restrict the practice but not to show why it is wrong. We deserve better than #2
#3 - assumption that the purpose of death penalty is deterrence, maybe it's justice. This argument seems to be missing the point and we deserve better.
#4a - "The death penalty is ultimate act of vengeance. Is this something that we want the state to be involved in?" - See point #1
#4b - "should victims really be the ones we're listening to when doling out sentences?" - Actually yes, they are the ones harmed not "The State" or "The People".
#4c - "How is that equitable with the concept of judicial justice, where both sides are supposed to be given fair treatment?" - I thought we were talking about sentencing here - not trying the case.
BTW - I'm against the death penalty except in the most obvious and severe cases.
Posted on 3/13/14 at 1:48 pm to Zach
quote:
a. If you don't believe that the state has the right to murder then you believe in Slavery and Nazism. It took the state (Civil War and WWII) to kill millions to end both.
The Geneva Convention forbids the execution of POW's who were either captured or gave themselves up. What happens on the battlefield is like what happens during the act of trying to apprehend a suspect who is not in the act of surrender (which is not Cap Pun).
This post was edited on 3/13/14 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 3/13/14 at 1:49 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
#4 The death penalty is ultimate act of vengeance. Is this something that we want the state to be involved in? Again the right often criticizes the role of emotion in policy making, saying that's a flawed position to start from.
Isn't the opposite even more true? While Cap Pun proponents can point toward the fact that the executed individual will never commit their crime (or any other) ever again, thus making society slightly safer, opponents often make the argument from little more than "it's morally wrong", which is their emotional statement of "it makes me feel uncomfortable".
Posted on 3/13/14 at 1:53 pm to Bard
quote:
opponents often make the argument from little more than "it's morally wrong", which is their emotional statement of "it makes me feel uncomfortable".
The government having the legal right to take my life makes me a little uncomfortable yes. I don't know if that's an emotional response or merely a rational one but either way, I'm good with it.
Posted on 3/13/14 at 1:55 pm to Zach
quote:
Sure. There is a lot more evidence involved in a murder case than DNA. If I took a gun and blew your brains out today and then bragged about it at Starbucks there would be none of my DNA at the crime scene.
I thought your argument was there is never a wrongful conviction nowadays because of DNA evidence?
Posted on 3/13/14 at 1:57 pm to taylork37
quote:
So you are just answering the responses you have a rebuttal to?
What response did I not rebut?
Posted on 3/13/14 at 1:59 pm to PVnRT
quote:
The Geneva Convention forbids the execution of POW's who were either captured or gave themselves up. What happens on the battlefield is like what happens during the act of trying to apprehend a suspect who is not in the act of surrender (which is not Cap Pun).
So, the GC allows the rules by which the state can murder people. Thanks. I got it down now.
Posted on 3/13/14 at 2:00 pm to Zach
quote:Now, now. Keep it clean.
Are sure you're a lawyer?
Posted on 3/13/14 at 2:03 pm to Zach
quote:
What does this have to do with anything? And regardless should we keep all 17th century social practices alive?
quote:
because judicial fairness means fairness from all parties, and that includes taking the decision of the fate of the accused out of the hands of the victim. Those people are not objectively capable of making a socially constructive decision.
Posted on 3/13/14 at 2:06 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:In such a case the stolen goods or their equivalent must be returned to their rightful owner PLUS the thief must then be made to suffer as much as the injured party. Just returning a stolen car does not injury to the thief, so I say take the stolen car back plus his car or an equivalent amount of money and apply it to the plaintiff's taxes or some such.
Okay so by that rationale are we also going to say the proper response to someone stealing your property would be for the government to show up and steal some of that perpetrators property as well?
Posted on 3/13/14 at 2:11 pm to Zach
this is an extremely poor platform for this, as by standers contributing to the thread impact the flow of the debate and distract the participants.
Posted on 3/13/14 at 2:14 pm to Tiguar
Posted on 3/13/14 at 2:16 pm to Tiguar
I agree with Tiguar.
I also think this thread isn't going the way Zach thought it would.
Slam dunk = Denied
I also think this thread isn't going the way Zach thought it would.
Slam dunk = Denied
Posted on 3/13/14 at 2:25 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
Just returning a stolen car does not injury to the thief, so I say take the stolen car back plus his car or an equivalent amount of money and apply it to the plaintiff's taxes or some such.
So now the person who had their car stolen is overcompensated? Brilliant. I'm going to start leaving my car unlocked.
This post was edited on 3/13/14 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 3/13/14 at 2:36 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:The police "kidnapping" someone so they can't harm others isn't wrong. Think of the police doing it to prevent it from happening again.
What should the punishment for kidnappers be, applying your logic?
Killing, when not self defense or to prevent other killing, is always wrong. Which is why killing in a justified war isn't wrong because you are doing it to protect others. And if soldiers surrender, you arrest them because you have the option. Killing a soldier who gives up is murder.
Killing a person after they are already not a threat to society is murder.
Killing isn't always wrong. But murder is.
This post was edited on 3/13/14 at 2:43 pm
Page 4 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News