Evolving Standards of Decency

[Crucible]

There are 17 or so criteria for the death penalty, all which involve murder except for two which is drug enterprise and treason.
That means the death penalty for rape is unconstitutional, being cruel and unusual punishment.

The judge knew this and still gave him the death penalty. The Supreme Court was justified in it's overruling.
Since when did we as Americans excuse unconstitutional judgements out of illogical emotion?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

There are 17 or so criteria for the death penalty, all which involve murder except for two which is drug enterprise and treason.
That means the death penalty for rape is unconstitutional, being cruel and unusual punishment.

Yet if a woman were to use deadly force to prevent or stop her rape, it would be considered a justifiable homicide.

 

[Crucible]

Yet if a woman were to use deadly force to prevent or stop her rape, it would be considered a justifiable homicide.

So would using deadly force to prevent any other form of violence.

The "scientific proof" is shown in hundreds and hundreds of incidents like this across the US daily (the criminal is deterred from resisting arrest for fear of deadly force being used against him).

Resisting arrest (or evading arrest) is not a justifiable cause for an officer to shoot the alleged criminal. Unless of course those policemen are wearing swatikas, and we are living in 1940's Germany.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet if a woman were to use deadly force to prevent or stop her rape, it would be considered a justifiable homicide.

So would using deadly force to prevent any other form of violence.

So you acknowledge that a woman can justifiably kill a rapist, but the government shouldn't be able to?

 

[Crucible]

So you acknowledge that a woman can justifiably kill a rapist, but the government shouldn't be able to?

You're logic on the matter doesn't add up. I can justly kill a man simply trying to attack me with a pair of fists- should the government kill him if I do not?

Rape is not murder.
But don't let facts get in the way. God forbid.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So you acknowledge that a woman can justifiably kill a rapist, but the government shouldn't be able to?

You're logic on the matter doesn't add up. I can justly kill a man simply trying to attack me with a pair of fists- should the government kill him if I do not?

Fists aren't considered deadly force, unless they're Mike Tyson's. And you are correct, civil government can't put someone to death unless they've committed a capital crime (unless you're an innocent unborn baby).

Rape is not murder.

It "murders" the spirit of the person raped. Hence society having strict punishment against it throughout history and hence (as you acknowledged), deadly force is justifiable in preventing or stopping it.

But don't let facts get in the way. God forbid.

I never take the words that moral relativist secular humanists spew out seriously.

 

[Crucible]

Quote:
Fists aren't considered deadly force, unless they're Mike Tyson's.

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because the courts acknowledged the difference between one's right to protect themselves and a bunch of racially paranoid whistle blowers.

It "murders" the spirit of the person raped.

It rapes the spirit of the person raped. But as I said, don't let facts get in the way.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Fists aren't considered deadly force, unless they're Mike Tyson's.

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because the courts acknowledged the difference between one's right to protect themselves and a bunch of racially paranoid whistle blowers.

Are you liberals still in mourning over Saint Trayvon?

As I recall St. Trayvon did a little head bashing besides using his fists.

320


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
It "murders" the spirit of the person raped.

It rapes the spirit of the person raped. But as I said, don't let facts get in the way

We could talk about the suicide rate of rape victims, but that wouldn't help your liberal cause much.

http://www.suicide.org/rape-victims-prone-to-suicide.html

 

[Crucible]

Are you liberals still in mourning over Saint Trayvon?

:doh:
Did you even read my post?

We could talk about the suicide rate of rape victims, but that wouldn't help your liberal cause much

I'm not a liberal.

And
Suicide is not another person's homicide. But for the third time, don't let facts get in the way.

 

[Stripe]

Do you consider collateral damages to be a sacrifice we make getting to the objective deterrence through fear?

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

We don't adopt your terminology because you've got some axe to grind against justice.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

We don't adopt your terminology because you've got some axe to grind against justice.

If it's the fallacy you say it is, what's the assumption I buried in the question?

All I did was inquire as to your opinion on the facts. All you have to do is answer the question.

Are collateral damages (by definition) a sacrifice one is willing to make to get to the goal of capital punishment?

Are you saying that there are no collateral damages to the DP? Are you saying no mistakes are made in using it? Are you saying no one murders to silence victims to prevent their own death penalty?

Or are you asserting no innocents have been killed as a result of using the death penalty?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

"Death penalty opponents" aren't known for acknowledging that a penalty of death is a deterrent that keeps many a potential criminal from committing said crime.

If it worked, we wouldn't still be finding murdered children. And when it comes to child rape, it's easier to kill them and report them missing than to face their witness against the crime.

Children are too easy to kill for the DP rape law to not put them at risk.

And a rape trial wouldn't be?

No, not the same. To help kill the rapist is harder to live with than to put him away to protect other children.

DNA evidence pretty much supersedes any witness testimony in this day and age.

In cases like this little girl, her testimony was required.

 

[ok doser]

Nope. Crimes like this were once rare.

they still are in countries that take criminal justice seriously, like singapore

 

[Stripe]

If it's the fallacy you say it is, what's the assumption I buried in the question?

All I did was inquire as to your opinion on the facts. All you have to do is answer the question.

Are collateral damages (by definition) a sacrifice one is willing to make to get to the goal of capital punishment?

Are you saying that there are no collateral damages to the DP? Are you saying no mistakes are made in using it? Are you saying no one murders to silence victims to prevent their own death penalty?

Or are you asserting no innocents have been killed as a result of using the death penalty?

None of the above.

We don't use the terms "collateral damage" and "sacrifice."

 

[1PeaceMaker]

None of the above.

We don't use the terms "collateral damage" and "sacrifice."

What sort of other word would you prefer?

If you don't like those words, just answer my question and pretend your substitute terms are there (you can even edit my words, just highlight or color the replacement terms to distinguish them from mine) so that the sentences retain the meaning of the questions and your answers make sense.

 

[Stripe]

Are collateral damages (by definition) innocent people being executed a sacrifice mistake one is willing to make to get to the goal justice of capital punishment?

No.

Of course not.

As you can see, your challenge is nonsense, so you use your evocative terms to disguise it.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

No.

Of course not.

As you can see, your challenge is nonsense, so you use your evocative terms to disguise it.

Actually, your answer was sufficient. You are not willing to see innocent people murdered by killers or put to death to serve an idea like the death penalty, yet that is exactly what the DP amounts to.

You know that humans can't do it perfectly, thus falling short of justice.

You also know that children are easy to silence by murder. Take away the reason to NOT murder a child rape victim and you create a child murder/rape victim.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

That is not to say let the child rapists run loose. They should be dealt with in a permanent fashion that doesn't incentivize murder. Life in prison and permanent tracking seems more reasonable.

Important question: Do you want to retroactively institute the death penalty for all who have murdered unborn children?


BTW, I really can't say I fault the judge over his/her reaction to this child-rape case, but we have a judicial process for a reason. Being forced to sit and hear the case as the initial judge was probably a traumatic, life altering experience. What an animal, to hurt a little girl so badly!

 

[Lexington'96]

I oppose the death penalty because one innocent person being executed is a tragedy that we must avoid.

 

[Stripe]

Actually, your answer was sufficient. You are not willing to see innocent people murdered by killers or put to death to serve an idea like the death penalty, yet that is exactly what the DP amounts to.

Shifting the goalposts is a logical fallacy.

You know that humans can't do it perfectly, thus falling short of justice.

Which is to never do anything good because you might do something bad.

You also know that children are easy to silence by murder. Take away the reason to NOT murder a child rape victim and you create a child murder/rape victim.

Argument from consequence.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Yeah, perverting scripture isn't helping your case. :nono:

That is not to say let the child rapists run loose. They should be dealt with in a permanent fashion that doesn't incentivize murder. Life in prison and permanent tracking seems more reasonable.

Rocks are cheaper. :up:

What an animal, to hurt a little girl so badly!

And you want to pay his food, accommodation and entertainment for the rest of his life.

I oppose the death penalty because one innocent person being executed is a tragedy that we must avoid.

Jesus was executed an innocent man. You're avoiding Him.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Shifting the goalposts is a logical fallacy.

So stop shifting them. I have no idea where you are trying to put them now, but remember where we started?

This particular part of the conversation was covering a question I posed, which was, isn't mercy preferable to the opposite of mercy (which is to make certain "sacrifices," or whatever word you prefer)?

Which is to never do anything good because you might do something bad.

No, which is to never be merciless, because you might do something bad.

Argument from consequence.

Our choices have consequences. It's logical to argue against touching a hot stove if it will burn you. The consequences of that action are a sufficient deterrent to a logical mind.

Yeah, perverting scripture isn't helping your case. :nono:

Mercy is no perversion.

Rocks are cheaper. :up:

No. After rocks and burial, you have nothing. Whereas we have a prison economy where law abiding people earn their bread as guards and maintenance crews, etc, and where inmates are housed safely away from others, able to work below minimum wage for their upkeep. The result is a net increase in the value of the economy.

And you want to pay his food, accommodation and entertainment for the rest of his life.

That's a serious oversimplification of what would happen if life in prison is enacted. Prisoners can be a valued part of the economy.

Jesus was executed an innocent man. You're avoiding Him.

What the executioners did to Jesus was a sin, else he wouldn't have had to pray to the father to forgive them as they crucified them.

That's not an example we want to follow.