09 Jan 08
Originally posted by znshoscroll up and compare your two celebrity innocents (neither of which is unambiguously innocent) with the list of worldwide homicides. try naming THOSE people.
Yes, I read an article about this case in the Times. Weird. There was a weirder one from Germany a few years back. The victim WANTED to be killed and eaten.
But, what is your point? In what way did hanging the innocents Timothy Evans / Dereck Bentlety help prevent consumption of human flesh by a nut case?
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by znshoI agree that police quotas are harmful. The challenge of measuring officiers to determine who best merits a promotion has to be met another way.
You may or may not be correct and perhaps I am being naively idealist. However, sometimes I think 'Yes, the system should be sit down with coffee...' What I mean is, perhaps a body of persons from all walks of life should be appointed at arriving, impartially, at the truth of a particular case.
Not all contries use the peer-jury system. The peer-jury suyst ...[text shortened]... argets etc' anbd do not penalise the police if no arrests are made in a particular period.
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by spruce112358This keeps coming up and it's driving me nuts. Police departments do not have quotas for arrests. To think so is silly .
I agree that police quotas are harmful. The challenge of measuring officiers to determine who best merits a promotion has to be met another way.
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by duecerJesus also said he came not to bring peace but a sword, that he wanted to ruin familities, and that he spoke cryptically to confuse us to get us to go to Hell.
Christ said we are to show compassion to all of God's children, not just the ones we like. However showing compassion does not mean that we ignore our obligation to protect society from criminals.
10 Jan 08
Originally posted by shavixmirIt's interesting how everyone in this debate has seemingly ignored this tidbit. And yet, it is the pennacle of the argument against capital punishment. Of course, the other arguments should not be drowned out, such as the fact that capital punishment does not deter crime, does cost more than life inprisonment, etc., but this ultimately boils down to fundamental principles and beliefs. If we as a nation meet murder with murder, how are we as a nation different from that murderer?
Interestingly enough, the second part (in the same paragraph of the bible) of "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is "Turn the other cheek."
It's about breaking a vicious circle (whether it's violence, blood vengeance, punishment, etc. )
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
10 Jan 08
Originally posted by spruce112358Would you not consider isolation in prison for the rest of your life "fair punishment"?
Punishment IS what breaks the cycle. Whoever does something wrong is much more likely to do it again if he goes unpunished...Fair punishment (and the desire to avoid it) works better across a broad range of individuals..
10 Jan 08
Originally posted by wittywonkaOnly if people don't learn.
It's interesting how everyone in this debate has seemingly ignored this tidbit. And yet, it is the pennacle of the argument against capital punishment. Of course, the other arguments should not be drowned out, such as the fact that capital punishment does not deter crime, does cost more than life inprisonment, etc., but this ultimately boils down to fun ...[text shortened]... we as a nation different from that murderer?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
One eye for one eye leaves 2 people half-blind.
It is important to learn NOT to poke someone's eye out in the first place.
10 Jan 08
Originally posted by wittywonkaI've proposed it.
Would you not consider isolation in prison for the rest of your life "fair punishment"?
The key point is that if you kill someone, you don't get to enjoy your own future. OK, you can stay alive (in case there was a mistake in the trial). But you have no contact with any of us or anything that was invented or printed after your infraction.
10 Jan 08
Originally posted by spruce112358An eye for an eye will make the world blind.
Unlike 'collateral damage', the notion of the death penalty goes back a long way, to the Mosaic Law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Throughout Western history, if you killed someone, your life was forfeit. It is very basic, fundamental principle.
It is such a simple and elegant principle, you can even explain it to a gradeschooler -- if ...[text shortened]... someone's notebook and destroy it, you should replace it, or give him yours if you cannot.
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by wittywonkaThe Bible is not the "pennacle" of the argument against executions.
It's interesting how everyone in this debate has seemingly ignored this tidbit. And yet, it is the pennacle of the argument against capital punishment. Of course, the other arguments should not be drowned out, such as the fact that capital punishment does not deter crime, does cost more than life inprisonment, etc., but this ultimately boils down to fun ...[text shortened]... we as a nation different from that murderer?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.