My son asked me if it is true that they are going to hang Saddam

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The death penalty is just wrong; it's bad. The gruesome spectacle of Hussein's hanging should be enough to show any of us that a state can't engage in this without dirtying and debasing itsef.

I could be way off on this, but I have a hazy memory of somebody posting a few years back that he and his wife worked on a DP case? Was that you? If so, did that help you reach this conclusion?

[YOhio]

All American-- Nice post. It immediately reminded me of the South Park episode where Saddam was sent to Heaven to live with the Mormon's as an eternal punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probably_%28South_Park%29

[BarbaraGordon]

Yeah, I gotta agree with Seattle, that the death penalty is a heinous and archaic remnant of Mosaic law...

...but AllAmerican's post was more fun.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I could be way off on this, but I have a hazy memory of somebody posting a few years back that he and his wife worked on a DP case? Was that you? If so, did that help you reach this conclusion?

Yes, it's our pro bono case. He's still alive. It's a long process. Each day is a victory in a sense, as long as he's on death row at Angola.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Yeah, I gotta agree with Seattle, that the death penalty is a heinous and archaic remnant of Mosaic law...

...but AllAmerican's post was more fun.

How can one support self defense, military in any degree and be against the concpet, not necessarily the application thereof?

To me, it is an example of moral courage.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How can one support self defense, military in any degree and be against the concpet, not necessarily the application thereof?

To me, it is an example of moral courage.

Wow, Arch, I think there's a question in there, but I'm not sure.

I'm not sure what's morally courageous about sentencing a man to die.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Wow, Arch, I think there's a question in there, but I'm not sure.

I'm not sure what's morally courageous about sentencing a man to die.

Being principled means being responsible for tough decisions and not to hide behind others.

We are willing to allow others to die for us, we are willing to allow police to kill, but when we recognize doing something to protect society, using the ultimate penalty, some wimp out. It's also inconsistent.

How can one support other forms of lethal self-defense and not support society's rights against single individuals? It seems weak-hearted and inconsistent.

[cougjunkie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8w_-9M5_SA

for those of you that want to see the hanging in its entirety. Click here, it is a cell phone video of it. Trust me when i say his neck breaks.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We are willing to allow others to die for us, we are willing to allow police to kill, but when we recognize doing something to protect society, using the ultimate penalty, some wimp out. It's also inconsistent.

Mr. Archaea

I aim for consistency in my ideological belief system.

This is, of course, not entirely possible, as our society is neither a simple nor a binary one.

Insofar as it relates to this discussion, the attempt at consistency means that I oppose premeditated death in nearly every form:

I oppose the death penalty; I oppose abortion; I oppose sending American soldiers to kill and be killed.

Are there exceptions to these tenets? Probably. Are there any easy solutions to the societal ills that these three issues are intended to address? I doubt it.


And "inconsistent"?
Capital punishment itself is inconsistent: We put some to death, but not others. Some are too old, or too young, or too incompetent, or not quite violent enough. Some just hire the right attorney.


As far as those accused of capital crimes, I vote we send them all to Pelican Bay. Seems like a worse punishment anyway.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Mr. Archaea

I aim for consistency in my ideological belief system.

This is, of course, not entirely possible, as our society is neither a simple nor a binary one.

Insofar as it relates to this discussion, the attempt at consistency means that I oppose premeditated death in nearly every form:

I oppose the death penalty; I oppose abortion; I oppose sending American soldiers to kill and be killed.

Are there exceptions to these tenets? Probably. Are there any easy solutions to the societal ills that these three issues are intended to address? I doubt it.


And "inconsistent"?
Capital punishment itself is inconsistent: We put some to death, but not others. Some are too old, or too young, or too incompetent, or not quite violent enough. Some just hire the right attorney.


As far as those accused of capital crimes, I vote we send them all to Pelican Bay. Seems like a worse punishment anyway.

Do you believe we should not have a military? Do you believe the military should not shoot to kill?

Do you believe police should not be allowed to use lethal force?

If believe government authorized lethal force is ever allowed, how can you be categorically opposed to the death penalty in our criminal justice system?

That is the inconsistency.

I understand objections to uneven application. I will not argue with a straight face that such inequities don't exist. They do. However, it is part of nature that some die and some live. It is part of the universe's order.

Society is built upon rules where ultimate decisions are there.