I've hesitated to post this thread, but someone has to speak out.

#927
#927
EasternVol said:
What could the difference(s) be between reasonable doubt and no doubt? It's not apparent.
But anyway why go through such gymnastics just to be able to execute someone? I don't get the blood lust. Sure there are some whose absence would make the world a better place. But sealing them away in maximum security for life serves the same purpose, and keeps open the possibility of fixing wrongful convictions.
Click to expand...


A few reasons (aside from "blood lust")?

1. Deterrent. Even if it cannot be shown to deter prospective criminals, it prevents additional crimes by convicted criminals while in prison or after being released.

2. Pragmatically, it saves a lot of money used for incarceration.

3. Satisfies the societal need to see justice done, especially for particularly heinous crimes.

We see social unrest and distrust of our legal system when there is a public perception that inadequate punishment is meted out to law enforcement. Why shouldn't we expect the same distrust when criminals who have destroyed lives are allowed to live out their lives? Such criminals evidently far prefer imprisonment to death, judging by how hard they fight their dearh sentences with legal challenges.
 
#929
#929
luthervol said:
So it's a question of whose rights you wish to take....a woman's or a zygotes.
Pretty easy answer for most.
Click to expand...

Society makes those decisions all the time. Usually the decision favors those who would suffer the most harm.

Loss of life vs. severe yet temporary hardship?

Most would say loss of life is more harmful...and the effect is permanent and 100% fatal every time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#931
#931
creekdipper said:
Society makes those decisions all the time. Usually the decision favors those who would suffer the most harm.

Loss of life vs. severe yet temporary hardship?

Most would say loss of life is more harmful...and the effect is permanent and 100% fatal every time.
Click to expand...
Society has made that decision. They decided the zygote has no right not to be aborted during the first trimester.
Most (society) would say, Roe vs. Wade is appropriate.
 
#932
#932
creekdipper said:
A few reasons (aside from "blood lust")?

1. Deterrent. Even if it cannot be shown to deter prospective criminals, it prevents additional crimes by convicted criminals while in prison or after being released.

2. Pragmatically, it saves a lot of money used for incarceration.

3. Satisfies the societal need to see justice done, especially for particularly heinous crimes.

We see social unrest and distrust of our legal system when there is a public perception that inadequate punishment is meted out to law enforcement. Why shouldn't we expect the same distrust when criminals who have destroyed lives are allowed to live out their lives? Such criminals evidently far prefer imprisonment to death, judging by how hard they fight their dearh sentences with legal challenges.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it's not a deterrent to crime on the street and I doubt it makes much difference in the joint. And it's not likely such people would be released before they're feeble
I understand it costs more for all the appeals to fulfill due process than long incarceration does.
Justice can be done by putting someone away for life. Prison is no day at the beach.
 
#933
#933
luthervol said:
Society has made that decision. They decided the zygote has no right not to be aborted during the first trimester.
Most (society) would say, Roe vs. Wade is appropriate.
Click to expand...

No, society did not decide. A group of appointed-for-life SCOTUS justices decided that. One can argue that those justices had to be confirmed by elected officials, but we all know that justices do not always vote in ways expected by those who nominated them. That was particularly true in the past when the process was far less politicized.

I believe that research would show that Roe would not have been favored in a public referendum in 1973 had it been on the ballot. Note that Nixon won in a landslide victory over the "progressive" McGovern.
 
#934
#934
creekdipper said:
No, society did not decide. A group of appointed-for-life SCOTUS justices decided that. One can argue that those justices had to be confirmed by elected officials, but we all know that justices do not always vote in ways expected by those who nominated them. That was particularly true in the past when the process was far less politicized.

I believe that research would show that Roe would not have been favored in a public referendum in 1973 had it been on the ballot. Note that Nixon won in a landslide victory over the "progressive" McGovern.
Click to expand...
lol
A majority of Americans support the US Supreme Court upholding its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade guaranteeing a constitutional right to abortion, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.
The poll finds that 60% percent of Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld, while 27% say it should be overturned.

Must have been one of those instances when the Supreme Court was a tad bit ahead of the curve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#936
#936
creekdipper said:
No, society did not decide. A group of appointed-for-life SCOTUS justices decided that. One can argue that those justices had to be confirmed by elected officials, but we all know that justices do not always vote in ways expected by those who nominated them. That was particularly true in the past when the process was far less politicized.

I believe that research would show that Roe would not have been favored in a public referendum in 1973 had it been on the ballot. Note that Nixon won in a landslide victory over the "progressive" McGovern.
Click to expand...
By today's standards Nixon was a progressive.
 
#937
#937
utvols88 said:
Dumb. Astonished you don't know how sex works.
Click to expand...
Ignorant.
Not astonished you overlook rape, incest, and failure of contraceptive devices.

I'll put you in the same nutty category as the "every sperm is sacred" loons.
 
#938
#938
luthervol said:
Ignorant.
Not astonished you overlook rape, incest, and failure of contraceptive devices.

I'll put you in the same nutty category as the "every sperm is sacred" loons.
Click to expand...

We've already established that you don't care about rape and incest in relation to your position on abortion. Stop using them. You even include outside of those rare instances in your post today

luthervol said:
It doesn't.

But outlawing abortion certainly takes away the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness from millions of women.
Click to expand...

Rape victims aren't a pawn for you to use to argue killing babies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#939
#939
utvols88 said:
We've already established that you don't care about rape and incest in relation to your position on abortion. Stop using them. You even include outside of those rare instances in your post today



Rape victims aren't a pawn for you to use to argue killing babies.
Click to expand...
That was a stupid take for you then and it is still a stupid take for you today.
Evidently you think you have some type of point, but you don't.

I use the examples to highlight the absurdities of your positions.
 
#940
#940
luthervol said:
That was a stupid take for you then and it is still a stupid take for you today.
Evidently you think you have some type of point, but you don't.

I use the examples to highlight the absurdities of your positions.
Click to expand...
It's sad you think of the victims in such a manner.

The take that is stupid is the one you keep on championing like it validates killing a baby regardless of reason. That's the absurdity. Acting like it mattered in the first place.
 
#943
#943
creekdipper said:
Legally? Are you talking about the state in which you reside or the federal government? If the former, you could travel to a state permitting abortion unless your residency state prohibits that, too.

If illegally, it's a moot question. You can literally commit any imaginable illegal act of which you are capable.
Click to expand...
So yes - if the State outlawed abortion tomorrow, you could still get one.

Now - do that exercise with capital punishment
 
#948
#948
85SugarVol said:
So yes - if the State outlawed abortion tomorrow, you could still get one.

Now - do that exercise with capital punishment
Click to expand...

????

Unclear as to your point. How would you get an abortion if it were illegal? The same way you could hire someone to kill someone for you? ????

Or are you just saying that the state wouldn't be involved?

???
 
#949
#949
creekdipper said:
????

Unclear as to your point. How would you get an abortion if it were illegal? The same way you could hire someone to kill someone for you? ????

Or are you just saying that the state wouldn't be involved?

???
Click to expand...
If we outlaw abortion today - there will still be abortion tomorrow.

If we outlaw State sponsored execution today - can you still be subject to State sponsored execution tomorrow?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top