Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I see them as different because one follows/is done in accordance to the law and one is not.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

... that's enitrely irrelevant. If it were legal to kill people with dark skin, would that be good?

That, too, is entirely irrelevant..

It's not about people with dark skin. It is about people who commit horrific crimes.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

But you just said it was wrong because it was illegal, and now you say it's because they commit horrific crimes.

Which is it, man?

both..

horrific crimes are illegal

and I said horrific crimes to avoid the "so people with parking tickets should be executed because illegal parking is illegal" that I'm sure was coming.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

If they're horrific, that doesn't justify killing them as it falls under two wrongs make a right, as us killing them is horrific, and coupling it with legality is still arguing from authority.

The main problem is that you've refused to fill in any gaps between "they killed" and "We should kill them". You're basically saying If A, then B. So, C. Either that, or you're using the two wrongs make a right fallacy from head to toe.

I don't see execution as horrific.
so, once again, I don't buy into "two wrongs make a right."

If I thought execution was horrific, I couldn't support the death penalty (because two wrongs do not make a right)

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

But then we end up using circular reason to define why you don't. What you see it as is irrelevant. The same act is being comitted.



.... but it's defined as a logical fallacy. And capital punishment(or your arguments for it anyway) as that fallacy. And I can defend that from any number of resources.



The problem is that you're taking the "two wrongs make a right" name too literally and then putting your personal "opinion" into that. If you read up on the definition, the logical model describes the one you are referring to.

So yes, it is no better than saying two wrongs make a right. Just because it's legally sanctioned doesn't make it right.

the only reason I support it is that it would cost a lot of money to keep all those people alive and in prison.

_________________
Wow, It's been like three or 4 years since I've last been here

You mean it would take alot to suuport them. Which, in some cases it wouldn't. If we could make prison more of a punishment (as I've said before) then we'd have less people in prison, less money would have to be used up on convicts and it may make prison more of an effactive tool for warding off crime.

_________________

you have a point

_________________
Wow, It's been like three or 4 years since I've last been here

Harder prisons haven't really been shown to be much of an effective deterrent.

Especially if someone spends life in prison, being harsh on them isn't a good idea.

Having less people in prison would make it much easier. The U.S. jails far too many people and it isn't working.

And jailing someone for life doesn't really cost any more than the death penalty.

There are so many legal costs you have to go through in order to make sure this person is "deserving" of the death penalty and 100% guilty(All of which, are of course, entirely fallable and dozens of later proven to be innocent people have been executed) among other things.

When has that been proven? And is there somewhere were this can be confirmed?



Why isn't it? Isn't the point of prison to punish our criminals?

_________________

i'm not sure if this had been already mentioned, but co-founder of the Crips turned anti-gang activist Stanley Williams was executed today in California. He had mantained his innocence on the murder charges that he was convicted of, and had renounced his gang affiliation. There were several attempts to stay his execution, but alas, they failed in the end.



Personally, I'm against the Death penalty, and I think that life would have done better. He had written books about the evils of gang violence, and if not executed, he could have written more.

_________________

Ramrod - Well, rosalie said it earlier. But I agree with you. I mean, he didn't apologize for the murders he committed, but I don't think that the state should have the power to murder as well. A country that is a theocracy should at least know the doctrine it is enforcing. I mean, if the government actually followed the bible (I've emphasized this before), then they would see judgment of living and dying in the hands of their god. And the government should not have power equal to that of the god they worship. Plus, we don't know why he didn't apologize. Maybe he know that apologizing wouldn't bring back those lives he took... or maybe he was really innocent... who knows... We'll never know now...

But still, the death penalty has proven itself to be ineffective. And plus, with the way the appeals system works, people who committed murders 25+ years ago are still awaiting execution. The guilty ones on death row want to die by that point. The people they killed didn't want to die, so why give the guilty murderer what they want? Rotting in prison is a far worse punishment than death.

With the advent of DNA evidence, many people have been found innocent of the crimes they were convicted of. This statistically means that the chances of executing an innocent person are high. Too high to justify still having the death penalty.

Rosalie made another poignant point by saying that we once again made ourselves look like fools on the world stage.

Some egalitarian promised land this turned out to be...

_________________

Congratulations, America, for killing a person who may, at least on some level, have changed his conciense even if he couldn't own up to what he'd done.

Next time you find people protesting against your ways, don't come to me to ask why.

The reason he didn't was becasue the govenor (Swartzy) didn't want the people thinking that because this guy was famous and that he was famous, that he was just going to let him go. He was afraid that epople would judge him harshly on that. Either way someone was going to be upset so he just went with the majority (conservative) choice and killed him. There was nothing he could do to appease everyone.

_________________

One news reporter who was in favor of it said that the United States had to fulfill its death threats, that it helped, because if the USA didn't, no one would take it seriously and would therefore some people would possibly murder without fear of it.

Bah, humbug. Crap, I say. I think he helped more alive than dead.

_________________

That's rubbish. What is this about the U.S.A. being taken seriously? It's a joke to most of those outside of it, and now it's just a sicker joke.



So he should have taken the path that didn't involve killing someone. The fact that it was appeasing the conservatives shows you another reason why conservatism bothers me.

So he should have taken the path that didn't involve killing someone. The fact that it was appeasing the conservatives shows you another reason why conservatism bothers me.[/quote]

Well he's a politician (currently). It's his job to appease the most amount of people. Sure, it may not have been the right choice, but he has a duty to the people who voted for him to do what he thinks they would want. I agree that taking someones life into the matter is going a bit far, but it was his call and he made it.

_________________

Just to get some of the facts strait, Mr.Williams appeal was denied by the 9th circuit court of appeals TWICE, and they are the most liberal court in America. Also, the Supreme Court turned down a last minute appeal as well. So to blame this on the governator just ingnorant. You should get your facts strait before making wild accuasations and assumptions.

_________________

I just thought Id add a little bit to this thread, if you really want to know the tragedy of this issue, it is those that Mr. Williams killed.

Here are the pictures of these poor people. I don't see how anyone who has seen these pictures can not agree that Mr. Williams deserved the death penalty, regardless of the changes he was fortunate enought to have the time to make before his execution.

*****WARNING***** This link has the actual pictures of those that Mr. Williams shot, they are EXTREMELY graphic. I don't have stomach to look at them, only look if you do.

_________________

I wouldn't call them extremely graphic except for the last one.

And your reasoning still doesn't make sense. Here are some pictures of him killing people, they make me feel sick, so we should kill him?

Do you realise why appeal to emotion and non sequitor are declared as things you shouldn't do in an argument?

I agree, lets get some vulcans down here to start running things! Seriously though, the point isn't what the punishment is, it is that he choose that punishment when he decided to kill these people. Why are we always trying to eliminate the consequences of peoples actions?

_________________

...what?



Being killed for once having been a killer is not a natural "consequence". It is state endorsed murder.

Shove your Mr.Spock joke. There is no connection between "has killed" and "Be killed" and I think everyone knows it.

Quite the contrary. People do see the connection: if someone commits a heinous crime, particularly multiple murders, the person is in fact deserving of death themselves for having inflicted it upon others. And the fact that nations and states reserve the right to enact that death upon those deserving of it is pretty much a universally recognized reality.

_________________

When Mr. Williams killed those people, he knew that the consequence if he got caught was the death penalty. So when he choose to murder, he accepted the consequences that that might bring.



Then what is a natural consequence for murder? It seems to me that CP is one of the most fair consequences we have.



The point of the pictures is that it makes what actually happened real. We can talk about a death, and does anyone really comprehend what that means? Don't you think its important to understand what we are talking about when we are talking about human life?

_________________

Actually, I would argue that, regardless of whether Mr. Williams knew the consequences or not, the fact that he would commit murder shows that he didn't care. Human life was meaningless to him at the time. Such an attitude is extremely dangerous to society, not to mention the heinous acts committed by those who care so little about human life.

Now, I don't know terribly much of what had changed in the past couple of decades. For all I know, he might be a completely changed man. It happens, and it is sad that he came to that realization too late to escape the consequences. Hopefully, the last few years of his life will be an encouragement to others not to pursue the same path he did early in life. One would hope that, at least.

In short, it is a sad reality that the death penalty occurs, but it is even sadder that the crimes leading to the death penalty occur.

_________________

That's a terrible argument for a number of reasons; the most obvious being that it still doesn't justify a thing, the next most obvious is that if he believed he would get away with it, it wouldn't apply, and the last being that it smells of bullyish arguments where you can make up all kinds of insane punishments for laws and when people get caught just ell them they should have known about it when they broke the law.



How? How is CP a fair consequence? Because it's an Eye for an Eye? Oh, that's fair.

The natural consequence for someone who is a murderer, is to put them somewhere where they can't murder people. Killing them is sinking to their level. Though you appear to have no problem with that.



If this was just about human life, then another life has been wasted, and there's no two ways about it.

Uhhh... just because they are obvious to you doesn't meant that they are obvious, nor that they are true. You offered no proof to back up your statments. CP is not an insane punishment, it is logical and has been up held by our highest courts. We have a system in place that will revoke unfair punishments.



You can argue all you want about CP, but one thing is that it is fair. Like it or not.



I actually have no problem with life in prison, but that isn't a "natural" consequence.

I love the sinking to their level argument. Sinking to his level would be to let him free, then when he is at a convienience store and unsuspecting, come in with a shotgun and blow his face off, then laugh at him while gurguling sounds come out of his obliterated face.

I'm glad that we take the higher road and give him a fair trial and allow him the opportunity to appeal his verdict. Mr. Williams got over twenty years to change himself, thats over twenty years more than he gave his victims.



actually, there is five lives wasted, but hopefully the last one that was wasted will save others from making the same mistakes.

_________________