Hooray for Texas, where state sanctioned killing is a source of pride. They do it right! (Page 2) davesdatahut: Chron, I think withdrawing a church's exemption because they won't do gay marriages would be a blatant violation of church-state separation. And, yes, Kennedy was planning to enforce desegregation measures because they involved public and government accommodations, where segregation was and is illegal. But we digress....what do you think of the idea of public executions?  duncan124: Ok 'What!' I could have said " Nope. Death sentence for murder does not necessary imply a kill for a kill style of punishment. The technically correct term is capital punishment for murder " But I was thinking if they have killed someone that person would be dead and unable to kill the person responsible. So I take it you are against wars and the military as well as the state death sentence? davesdatahut: I do not embrace war, but I certainly understand it is necessary at times. I am not against the military. What gave you the idea that I was? (Edited by davesdatahut)  chronology: Dave you are not being serious. The US has made every effort to be as humane as possible in executions . Public executions belong to 'old Europe' not new America. duncan124: The death penalty does not exist in Europe. Datahut said;- " This speaks for itself. The state of Texas - proud bearers of a well-honed killing machine....give this a read:" It was one of the problems they faced at the start of the ww1. Who was legally responsible to allow the mass recruitment the leaders then said they needed. It turned out to be the local councils who also ran the magistrates courts.... and so after the war suspicions were raised that shooting others could also be legally right and produced a ban on guns. duncan124: You must be against the military if you against the Death Penalty. You might go further and say ' A bayonet has a worker on both ends!' davesdatahut: Chron, I certainly AM being serious. Why should the executions be private and humane? Isn't the idea to inflict the ultimate punishment on murderers? Why hide it from the public? Are the states that have it embarrassed? If you want the death penalty, let the public see what that looks like. Otherwise, don't do it. (Edited by davesdatahut) chronology: dave. You know the Constitution as well or better than I do; 'The United States citizen must not be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment'. duncan124: The military does not kill civilians while conducting its wars either as a by product of the fighting or by demanding more and more money from the civilian population? And so of course Datahuts other statement, " Why should the executions be private and humane? Isn't the idea to inflict the ultimate punishment on murderers?" tries to hide the real war. davesdatahut: Chron, that is a core part of the debate, whether the death penalty does or does not represent cruel or unusual punishment. I think it does. Another key question is at what point is it ok for the state to kill people? I say there are no such circumstances other than wars or a crime in progress that the police reasonably believe requires deadly force to stop. (Edited by davesdatahut) davesdatahut: Duncan, yes, there are plenty of civilian casualties in war. Where are you headed with this line of argument?  The13th: Let's sidetrack a bit. I used to watch a movie about Hitler. During the last days, a few high ranking German feed poison capsule to their kids and ended their life. It look painless. I guess the knowledge of how the kids will suffer in various hands left these parents with no choice. I am not too sure why I suddenly thought of this. Perhaps its an argument that dead can be painless. Ok I am very sure no one will want to show execution on TV or public square. As I have argue, whenever state execute, it is an admission of guilt that the state has failed in some way that allow the society to produce a type of people that has cross a certain prohibited line. It is understandable that state do not wish to show this. To dramatize this, say tucker's father is called in to perform the execution. As a father he knew he has failed in many ways that caused his kid to end up where she is. With incredible heart wrenching pain he get it done. He has no wish to be cruel. Or shown it on TV. All he want is for the death be administered in as painless as it possibly can. This represent the state position. duncan124: They were from Illinois. Where I am going with it is;- You arguments are a humbug, like all the famous people who said the Death penalty was wrong, because you say the state can kill people in one way but not another.  Serabi: This is Africa - we live with murder alongside us every day. Africa is vicious, violent and dark. If you kill, you give up your right to live. If you rape and kill someone's psyche, you give up your right to live. If you abuse a child to the point of irreparable damage, you give up you right to live! I don't care how the 'poor' murderer is put down! Take him around the corner and shoot him, for all I care! Bleeding heart, anti-death penalty activists just seem like a goody two shoes. Maybe I'm biased, no, I am biased! I have lost too many friends and family to senseless racial killings and my own attempted hijacking a while ago. Murder willy-nilly, go to jail, bribe a prison guard, get out and do the same thing? NOOOO! The13th: Yes of course, society will need to progress to a very advanced state before we can consider abolishing of capital punishment and this is the original context of this thread. I imagine when civilization was first developing, kiling in self defence is a necessary part of daily life and when society was first form the law would naturally include capital punishment for certain crimes. This also apply in modern day in places where law and order appears to have breakdown. The sinister just have to go for the greater good of the society. davesdatahut: Serabi, I am not going to get into silly name-calling on this issue. Opposing the death penalty does not make someone a bleeding heart, goody two shoes, three shoes or four shoes. Personally, I have no bleeding heart for murderers. I just think society should jail them for life, or for very very long time....but not reduce itself to killing. If, however, it must, I say do it in public, for all to see, right in the town square, so people can witness this, as opposed to doing it in private. I know why it's done in private - because the state is ashamed to be doing it and does not want to show it off. That being said, Serabi, it appears that you find state-sanctioned murder acceptable under certain circumstances. At what point is the death penalty not acceptable? What crimes do not rise to the level of state-sanctioned killing? Where do you, Serabi, draw that line? (Edited by davesdatahut) davesdatahut: Boyzz, capital punishment is not an act of self-defense. By the time the defendant is convicted, he or she is in custody and not posing an immediate threat to anyone. The only thing capital punishment does is satisfy, for one fleeting moment, people's desire for vengeance and bloodlust. I get that. But if we sanction killing, we reduce ourselves to the level of the murderer. If the state sanctions murder, should it then sanction rape against a rapist as the proper punishment, or assault against an assaulter? davesdatahut: So, do I understand you correctly, Duncan, that if someone acknowledges that killing happens during wartime and that the police (and ohers) have a right to kill in self-defense, one must then be for the death penalty? Absurd reasoning. duncan124: I have not mention the police once! Its all in your mind. The only thing I talked about was you and your support for the 'Gay Marriage'. Datahut does not understand that he is trying to condemn women who use a gun to defend themselves against rapist to a worst sentence then the rapists while at the same time saying his GAY friends in the army can carry on killing people till they get their satisfaction. F OFF and get a life. | Politics Chat Room 70 People Chatting Similar Conversations |