Federal Death Penalty brought back to life

[IPleadInsanity]

If a death sentence is given it should be carried out quickly and in public. The entire point of the death penalty is to prevent crime, it's not about punishment. Sitting on death row for 15 or 20 years is absolutely ridiculous. If you are unable to use it as a preventative measure then you should not be allowed to use it at all.

 

[Wireless1]

If a death sentence is given it should be carried out quickly and in public. The entire point of the death penalty is to prevent crime, it's not about punishment. Sitting on death row for 15 or 20 years is absolutely ridiculous. If you are unable to use it as a preventative measure then you should not be allowed to use it at all.

Like Timothy McVeigh?

 

[CagleMtnVol]

First federal execution in 17 years. Federal government can't get it's act together to save people from COVID, but damn, it just can't wait to execute folks. Loves em some death I guess.

Read the whole thread.

So I'm guessing you have a problem with the death penalty?

 

[evillawyer]

So I'm guessing you have a problem with the death penalty?

Yes, I'm opposed.

 

[allvol123]

First federal execution in 17 years. Federal government can't get it's act together to save people from COVID, but damn, it just can't wait to execute folks. Loves em some death I guess.

Read the whole thread.

Is this the one that killed an 8 year old child?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Well, bye ....... another idiot murderer goes down w/a whimper ....... so sad to see you leave this way ......

Wesley Ira Purkey executed by lethal injection, the second federal execution this week

 

[bUTchLookin4Dimez]

You're a boozling moron if you oppose the death penalty. If an individual recieves the death penalty, and there's no question about their guilt, the crime had to be bad enough that warrants them be put to death. There's no room in prisons or society for murderers, rapists, etc.

I hear all kinds of arguments. My favorite is "it doesn't make you any better a person than the murderer. If you execute them than you're a murderer too." Really? No, I didn't kill and rape a child and their mother.

Really no reason to rebuttal. I'll give no argument.

 

[allvol123]

Well, bye ....... another idiot murderer goes down w/a whimper ....... so sad to see you leave this way ......

Wesley Ira Purkey executed by lethal injection, the second federal execution this week

Well he killed a 16 year old and 80 year old. Swell guy.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Is this the one that killed an 8 year old child?

8 1/12 years too late for the libs in here to defend?

 

[rjd970]

You're a boozling moron if you oppose the death penalty. If an individual recieves the death penalty, and there's no question about their guilt, the crime had to be bad enough that warrants them be put to death. There's no room in prisons or society for murderers, rapists, etc.

I hear all kinds of arguments. My favorite is "it doesn't make you any better a person than the murderer. If you execute them than you're a murderer too." Really? No, I didn't kill and rape a child and their mother.

Really no reason to rebuttal. I'll give no argument.

I'm not sure where I stand on capital punishment, but I lean towards being in favor of it. That said, do you think we have ever...even once...executed an innocent person? Do you think it is guaranteed moving forward it won't happen?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm not sure where I stand on capital punishment, but I lean towards being in favor of it. That said, do you think we have ever...even once...executed an innocent person? Do you think it is guaranteed moving forward it won't happen?

I lean toward it. I suspect we may have executed an innocent person, and I of course it's possible to happen in the future. With that said, I still lean toward it.

Would you make the same argument per prison terms? Only allow life sentences if there's a guarantee an innocent person will never get one?

 

[rjd970]

I lean toward it. I suspect we may have executed an innocent person, and I of course it's possible to happen in the future. With that said, I still lean toward it.

Would you make the same argument per prison terms? Only allow life sentences if there's a guarantee an innocent person will never get one?

No, only because a life term isn't as final. Once the person is executed, there is no going back. I get that a person could die in prison, but the state isn't ending the life.

My main hangup with capital punishment is I'm uneasy with the state executing people.

I was more making the point that one isn't a "boozling moron if you oppose the death penalty". There are legitimate arguments against it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, only because a life term isn't as final. Once the person is executed, there is no going back. I get that a person could die in prison, but the state isn't ending the life.

My main hangup with capital punishment is I'm uneasy with the state executing people.

I was more making the point that one isn't a "boozling moron if you oppose the death penalty". There are legitimate arguments against it.

I understand don't think anyone is a boozling moron for being against the death penalty. Though I don't know why you'd draw the line at ending a life, but not at taking a life (i.e. locking them up behind bars).

I do think there's a certain perception of terrible hypocrisy if you were to make that argument and defend abortion, though. You'd be against the death penalty due to the loss of potential/future life, but not the same given for the innocent baby whose only crimes are being conceived, and needing a host to support your life for a few months.

 

[rjd970]

I understand don't think anyone is a boozling moron for being against the death penalty. Though I don't know why you'd draw the line at ending a life, but not at taking a life (i.e. locking them up behind bars).

I do think there's a certain perception of terrible hypocrisy if you were to make that argument and defend abortion, though. You'd be against the death penalty due to the loss of potential/future life, but not the same given for the innocent baby whose only crimes are being conceived, and needing a host to support your life for a few months.

We've had this debate before. The difference is between life and a person. I don't use them interchangeably.

I draw the line at personhood. Executing a prisoner is ending a real person and guaranteed future. Removing a 2 week old embryo is not ending a person, and is only ending a potential future. If you believe all that is needed to be a person is unique genetic material then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Orange_Crush]

We've had this debate before. The difference is between life and a person. I don't use them interchangeably.

I draw the line at personhood. Executing a prisoner is ending a real person and guaranteed future. Removing a 2 week old embryo is not ending a person, and is only ending a potential future. If you believe all that is needed to be a person is unique genetic material then we will have to agree to disagree.

Eh... Convenient. That embryo would be a person if left as life. The convict would be a person if the gov't didn't kill him/her. The embryo's years as a person are robbed. The criminal's too.

Your argument was "it's so final". No? As in, there's no going back. As in, it robs everything that future person will be or experience. But your argument for abortion is what it is now, as opposed to the argument of robbing it of all that it would have been, had or experienced.

Convenient.

 

[rjd970]

Eh... Convenient. That embryo would be a person if left as life.

That is not guaranteed. In the prisoner example, it is.

The convict would be a person if the gov't didn't kill him/her. The embryo's years as a person are robbed. The criminal's too.

In one case a future is guaranteed, in the other, it isn't. It's not hard. Add in also one is currently a person with feelings, experiences, emotions....and the other isn't.

Your argument was "it's so final". No? As in, there's no going back. As in, it robs everything that future person will be or experience. But your argument for abortion is what it is now, as opposed to the argument of robbing it of all that it would have been, had or experienced.

Convenient.

It's not convenient, it's facts. It's also consistent.

 

[hog88]

Yes, I'm opposed.

Probably the only thing we agree on.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That is not guaranteed. In the prisoner example, it is.



In one case a future is guaranteed, in the other, it isn't. It's not hard. Add in also one is currently a person with feelings, experiences, emotions....and the other isn't.



It's not convenient, it's facts. It's also consistent.

Oh, so you liked to assume statistics when you were arguing against the death penalty, but not when arguing to steal personhood from innocent human lives.

What made you nervous about capital punishment?

I'm not sure where I stand on capital punishment, but I lean towards being in favor of it. That said, do you think we have ever...even once...executed an innocent person? Do you think it is guaranteed moving forward it won't happen?

You're saying that not one innocent human fetus would have grown to personhood? I wonder what the actual % would be if left to term? Mid-to-upper 90 percentile that would be born as a human person?

In one case a future is guaranteed, in the other, it isn't. It's not hard. Add in also one is currently a person with feelings, experiences, emotions....and the other isn't.

That's beside your logical point. It's a red herring. The feelings and experiences they've had are theirs and they've had them. You're sketchy about us robbing a convicted felon of the sum total of what they'd have experienced in the future.

But you have no issue with robbing an innocent fetus of the experiences it would have in the future. As a matter of fact, your argument has horribly disfigured your argument. You're claiming that those "feelings, experiences, emotions" are of value, and it's wrong to be robbed of those, yet you're simultaneously arguing that they are of no value for the fetus, and it's OK to rob that human life of experiencing those things.

Your entire argument is that it's wrong to be robbed of future personhood, but it's OK to rob an unborn life of future personhood if it's an inconvenience on someone else.

Stand up and take a bow.

 

[Orange defense]

Fryem all!

 

[LouderVol]

That is not guaranteed. In the prisoner example, it is.



In one case a future is guaranteed, in the other, it isn't. It's not hard. Add in also one is currently a person with feelings, experiences, emotions....and the other isn't.



It's not convenient, it's facts. It's also consistent.

The person in prison could die of any number of things, so no his future is not guaranteed. Even if not in prison they could die. You have a very subjective take on what is "guarenteed".

No life is guarenteed, infact there is a 100% mortality rate in humans.

Take a look at life expectancy. It keeps climbing. But there is more correlation to that climb being a result of lower infant mortality rate, than it is people living longer. So one could argue you do more good protecting the young life than the old.

*typos

 

[rjd970]

Oh, so you liked to assume statistics when you were arguing against the death penalty, but not when arguing to steal personhood from innocent human lives.

What made you nervous about capital punishment?



You're saying that not one innocent human fetus would have grown to personhood? I wonder what the actual % would be if left to term? Mid-to-upper 90 percentile that would be born as a human person?

If we are talking about early embryos, not a single person was or has been killed (unless you believe a person is simply genetic material). Period. What was stopped, was a potential future person.

If we are talking about a prisoner executed, a person is in fact killed. 100% of time. Period. There is no arguing this. What was stopped, was an actual future person.

I literally don't know how to say it any more simple. There is a distinction between the two that you seem to not see, not care, or not understand (and I don't think it is the last one).

That's beside your logical point. It's a red herring. The feelings and experiences they've had are theirs and they've had them. You're sketchy about us robbing a convicted felon of the sum total of what they'd have experienced in the future.

But you have no issue with robbing an innocent fetus of the experiences it would have in the future. As a matter of fact, your argument has horribly disfigured your argument. You're claiming that those "feelings, experiences, emotions" are of value, and it's wrong to be robbed of those, yet you're simultaneously arguing that they are of no value for the fetus, and it's OK to rob that human life of experiencing those things.

That is not beside my logical point, it is central to it (assuming you understand my point). A real person is being killed in one instance, and not in the other. My position is all life and potential futures are not sacred, all persons and real future personhoods are.

Your entire argument is that it's wrong to be robbed of future personhood, but it's OK to rob an unborn life of future personhood if it's an inconvenience on someone else.

Stand up and take a bow.

No, it's not. But your attempt to ascribe a position to me is noted.

My position is elementary simple. It is wrong to rob a person of future personhood. That's it. Up to a certain point, abortion doesn't apply.

 

[rjd970]

The person in prison could die of any number of things, so no his future is not guaranteed. Even if not in prison they could die. You have a very subjective take on what is "guarenteed".

No life is guarenteed, infact there is a 100% mortality rate in humans.

Take a look at life expectancy. It keeps climbing. But there is more correlation to that climb being a result of lower infant mortality rate, than it is people living longer. So one could argue you do more good protecting the young life than the old.

*typos

This makes no sense. If the needle doesn't go in the arm, the gun isn't fired, the electricity switch isn't pulled, it is certain he/she doesn't die at that moment. There is some future guaranteed past it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

If we are talking about early embryos, not a single person was or has been killed (unless you believe a person is simply genetic material). Period. What was stopped, was a potential future person.

If we are talking about a prisoner executed, a person is in fact killed. 100% of time. Period. There is no arguing this. What was stopped, was an actual future person.

I literally don't know how to say it any more simple. There is a distinction between the two that you seem to not see, not care, or not understand (and I don't think it is the last one).



That is not beside my logical point, it is central to it (assuming you understand my point). A real person is being killed in one instance, and not in the other. My position is all life is not sacred, all persons are.



No, it's not. But your attempt to ascribe a position to me is noted.

My position is elementary simple. It is wrong to rob a person of future personhood. That's it. Up to a certain point, abortion doesn't apply.

Your position is apparently too complicated for you to comprehend it. You aren't arguing against the state or anyone else robbing them of what they ARE. You are arguing against robbing them of what they will experience, feel, etc... It's impossible to rob anyone of what they are. All you can do is rob them of the future.

So, you're conveniently moving the goalposts between your argument. I don't know whether you know you're doing it and are hand waving to distract from it, or just don't realize that you're doing it.

I'll repeat, your argument per the death penalty hasn't once been about robbing them of what they ARE. It has been about the immorality of robbing them of their future personhood (experiences, emotions, etc...)

Yet you change the argument about abortion. Then, you want to talk about what they are now, and refuse any discussion of the future personhood that they're being robbed of.

I don't know how more elementary I can point out the hypocrisy. And this isn't even considering the hypocrisy of your statistical failures here. (If just ONE innocent prisoner is killed...but not EVERY fetus will develop into a human.)

Again. It's not complicated, or hard to see the breakdown of your logic. You attribute ultimate value to the future personhood of the prisoner, yet deny the value of it in the unborn life.

 

[LouderVol]

This makes no sense. If the needle doesn't go in the arm, the gun isn't fired, the electricity switch isn't pulled, it is certain he/she doesn't die at that moment. There is some future guaranteed past it.

Maybe they are in the chair and the order comes down to spare his life and he is so relieved he has a heart attack. Maybe on his way back to his cell he gets shivved. There is no way to guarantee a future past some randomly determined moment in time.

And the embryo would have some future guarenteed past the abortion too. You are just choosing the two week moment because for you that life doesnt matter at that point. Even while admitting that that same life would matter if allowed its future.

The death penalty is just the reverse. That life matters up to the point that it doesnt.

FWIW I am against both. Just pointing out you dont apply the same logic to both arguments.

 

[rjd970]

Your position is apparently too complicated for you to comprehend it. You aren't arguing against the state or anyone else robbing them of what they ARE. You are arguing against robbing them of what they will experience, feel, etc... It's impossible to rob anyone of what they are. All you can do is rob them of the future.

What? I have no clue what you mean by the bolded. Killing somebody is robbing them of what they are and what they will become. If you disagree, then so be it. That is not the way I see it.

So, you're conveniently moving the goalposts between your argument. I don't know whether you know you're doing it and are hand waving to distract from it, or just don't realize that you're doing it.

I'll repeat, your argument per the death penalty hasn't once been about robbing them of what they ARE. It has been about the immorality of robbing them of their future personhood (experiences, emotions, etc...)

IT IS ABOUT BOTH.

Yet you change the argument about abortion. Then, you want to talk about what they are now, and refuse any discussion of the future personhood that they're being robbed of.

I have addressed both. Literally...for the love. With abortion, it is about BOTH as well. What they are and what they may or may not become.

Murder - robbing a person of what they are and what they will become.
Abortion (to a point) - robbing a life and what it could become.

I am addressing both in both cases.

I don't know how more elementary I can point out the hypocrisy. And this isn't even considering the hypocrisy of your statistical failures here. (If just ONE innocent prisoner is killed...but not EVERY fetus will develop into a human.)

Again. It's not complicated, or hard to see the breakdown of your logic. You attribute ultimate value to the future personhood of the prisoner, yet deny the value of it in the unborn life.

You are desperately trying to force me into saying all I care about is future personhood and then leveling hypocrisy towards the abortion side. It simply isn't true. What IS and what WILL BE are central to both instances and in fact important qualifiers.