Tsarnaev death penalty


Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,007
16,453
The Misty Mountains
Or being pro-choice and opposing the death penalty?
Wrong, you are not comparing apples to apples. Fertilized eggs are not "qualified" people, they are potential people, or people under development. And they are not independent, but rely on the mother, a mother who gets a say in the matter. I realize this statement will likely set off a string of heated replies, but I won't be responding to them in this thread, my opinion.
 

Meister

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,455
4,265
Wrong, you are not comparing apples to apples. Fertilized eggs are not "qualified" people, they are potential people, or people under development. And they are not independent, but rely on the mother, a mother who gets a say in the matter.
So are children
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jul 17, 2005
18,045
1,176
5045 feet above sea level
Wrong, you are not comparing apples to apples. Fertilized eggs are not "qualified" people, they are potential people, or people under development. And they are not independent, but rely on the mother, a mother who gets a say in the matter. I realize this statement will likely set off a string of heated replies, but I won't be responding to them in this thread, my opinion.
If it was that cut and dry, the issue wouldn't be such a sensitive topic now would it?

The other side would argue just as vehemently and say you're mistaken.
 

Meister

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,455
4,265
Sorry, but children have passed the developmental threshold to be qualified people. ;)
Interesting. So let's say I am of the opinion that you are not a "qualified people" it's then ok to kill you?

Kinda reminds me of what happened in europe 80 years ago. The German regime decided that there is lots of not "qualified people" ;)
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,007
16,453
The Misty Mountains
Interesting. So let's say I am of the opinion that you are not a "qualified people" it's then ok to kill you?

Kinda reminds me of what happened in europe 80 years ago. The German regime decided that there is lots of not "qualified people" ;)
Absolutely. You are delving into a moral standard which realistically has some flexibility, regardless of how self serving it might be. Look at the history of slavery around the world and the U.S. For a hundred years in the U.S. South, people from Africa where not considered to be human, qualifying as property, lacking civil/human rights. But I'll emphasis, these were developed independent people who could live outside the womb without life support, and especially not a petri-dish of cells.
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,328
30,631
The Far Horizon
I'm against the death penalty for two reasons.
1. We are supposed to be better than killers. When we start picking and choosing which reasons are good enough to kill each other, that's a failure. It must be a consistent standard of unacceptability.
2. Documentation that a significant number of innocent people are on death row for crimes they were later exonerated for because of DNA evidence.
Well, I am against the death penalty for the two reasons you have put forward,

1) We should be better than that, and,

2) Mistakes get made - and correction of executing someone by mistake is an error that it is not possible to redress.

However, I am also against it for a third reason, and it is this:

3) Even as a penalty, even when using words such as 'deterrence', the death penalty is not always applied fairly; it is a penalty that is used disproportionately against the poor and the powerless.
 

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,360
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
3) Even as a penalty, even when using words such as 'deterrence', the death penalty is not always applied fairly; it is a penalty that is used disproportionately against the poor and the powerless.
True, another reason at least in the UK was juries were more and more likely to come to not guilty verdicts if the death penalty was on the line (I'm sure this applies to other jurisdictions as well).
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
I am curious how you feel about this. I am surprised that a VERY liberal state arrived at the death penalty as opposed to life in prison.

At first take, it seems very hypocritical to the stance I hear many liberals profess they believe. However, does this mean that the death penalty is acceptable depending on the severity of the crime regardless of political affiliation?
You know, I was expecting someone to make almost this exact post. I wasn't looking forward to it, however, because there are so many presuppositions rolled into a few sentences that it will take all week to unroll them.

Here is an article on logical fallacies for your entertainment:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

and, presuppositions:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Presupposition


Why do you suppose that a jury is always statistically representative of the state where the members live?

Why do you suppose that a federal jury would be picked the same way that a state/local jury would?

Why do you suppose that the judges instructions to the jury would be the same in a federal trial as a state/local trial?

Then we have the classic loaded question, "either you are a hypocrite" or, "do you secretly agree with me". How about you? Have you stopped beating your wife yet?


Because you can't believe that rational people actually disagree with you on this issue. I'm disappointed, because if we were discussing the relative merits of different welfare schemes, I would expect a much more rational argument. Unfortunately, the subject of the death penalty seems to engender religious arguments rather than rational arguments.

Try again. What are the rational arguments for the death penalty?
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jul 17, 2005
18,045
1,176
5045 feet above sea level
You know, I was expecting someone to make almost this exact post. I wasn't looking forward to it, however, because there are so many presuppositions rolled into a few sentences that it will take all week to unroll them.

Here is an article on logical fallacies for your entertainment:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

and, presuppositions:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Presupposition


Why do you suppose that a jury is always statistically representative of the state where the members live?

Why do you suppose that a federal jury would be picked the same way that a state/local jury would?

Why do you suppose that the judges instructions to the jury would be the same in a federal trial as a state/local trial?

Then we have the classic loaded question, "either you are a hypocrite" or, "do you secretly agree with me". How about you? Have you stopped beating your wife yet?


Because you can't believe that rational people actually disagree with you on this issue. I'm disappointed, because if we were discussing the relative merits of different welfare schemes, I would expect a much more rational argument. Unfortunately, the subject of the death penalty seems to engender religious arguments rather than rational arguments.

Try again. What are the rational arguments for the death penalty?
I am opposed to the death penalty. You talk about logical fallacies while implementing them at the same time.

Also, I am not married and not sure why you bring up domestic abuse questions towards me.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,436
United Kingdom
Not only did the death penalty not prevent the deaths and injuries of those at the Marathon bombing by failing to deter the terrorist, he will also cost the Government millions of dollars in attorney fees over the years due to the appeals process.

The federal death penalty is also "paused" at the moment due to difficulties in sourcing the drugs required from European manufacturers.

So, to conclude, the death penalty failed to deter the criminal and will end up costing the Government, the Justice Department and the courts, substantial time, money, and resources compared to life imprisonment without parole.

The only remaining factor that those who support the death penalty can raise is that of vengeance. And justice ≠ vengeance.
 

xmichaelp

macrumors 68000
Jul 10, 2012
1,806
625
What if, instead of a lethal injection or other "humane" method, he had to be throttled to death with someone's bare hands? And what if you were the one that had to do it? Would you be able to kill another defenseless person and watch the life go out of his eyes?
If he was like, Hitler.

Most likely no though, but I would also be a vegan if I had to kill my own food too so I don't really see your point.

Also, to clarify, I don't have a problem with the concept of the most ruthless and vile people being offed as they serve no purpose to society. However, the state killing it's own people doesn't fully sit well with me. As i said though, I'm against the death penalty in practice, I would not vote for it . I don't see why you're throwing hypotheticals at me and trying to get me to say I'd kill someone.
 

Thraun

macrumors regular
Dec 18, 2008
159
34
Abbotsford, BC
If he was like, Hitler.

Most likely no though, but I would also be a vegan if I had to kill my own food too so I don't really see your point.

Also, to clarify, I don't have a problem with the concept of the most ruthless and vile people being offed as they serve no purpose to society. However, the state killing it's own people doesn't fully sit well with me. As i said though, I'm against the death penalty in practice, I would not vote for it . I don't see why you're throwing hypotheticals at me and trying to get me to say I'd kill someone.
My post wasn't targeted at you specifically, and I'm not just trying to get you to say you'd kill someone.

My point is more that I think there's a disconnect between those who support capital punishment and the actual act of it. I'm mostly curious at how many pro-death advocates would change their stance somewhat if they had to be the ones to do the deed, and with their own hands.
 

Populism

macrumors regular
Jun 11, 2014
185
2,970
I am curious how you feel about this. I am surprised that a VERY liberal state arrived at the death penalty as opposed to life in prison.

At first take, it seems very hypocritical to the stance I hear many liberals profess they believe. However, does this mean that the death penalty is acceptable depending on the severity of the crime regardless of political affiliation?
Liberals have taught us that the Killing of another can be wrong-yet-understandable. For a more detailed explanation, see every PRSI thread on Islamic/ISIS violence.

I differ from liberals in that regard in that I think that, for example, the death sentence of the Boston bomber is understandable AND a good and correct thing.
 

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,109
3,749
Liberals have taught us that the Killing of another can be wrong-yet-understandable. For a more detailed explanation, see every PRSI thread on Islamic/ISIS violence.

I differ from liberals in that regard in that I think that, for example, the death sentence of the Boston bomber is understandable AND a good and correct thing.
And the fact that this verdict is only possible because he was tried by the federal government rather than the state government doesn't bother you as a conservative?