Pro-Capital Punishment / Anti-Abortion

MrPudding

I asked this question in another thread, but with hindsight it probably did not belong there, and I am hopeful that it might warrant its own thread.

I have some difficulty when a person professes to be anti-abortion but pro-capital punishment. I am curious as to the justification for this type of stance. I understand that probably the majority of poster here would be anti both, but there are some posters here that feel that abortions are murder but capital punishment is fair game.

I understand the anti-abortion argument that the foetus is a living human being and that life is sacred and should be protected etc, so I don't think we need any more discussion about why people are anti-abortion, besides, I am sure the mods are fed up with abortion threads anyway.

I think it will interesting to discuss why the committing of a crime can be considered reason enough to suspend the rights bestowed upon conception.

My personal stance on the subject is I am pro-choice, though not a fan of abortions, and anti-capital punishment.

I am hopeful that posters that are not anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment might also offer thoughts on why someone might think like this, like Fanny did on the other thread.

MrP

i71jskz5xu42pb

Let me get this straight: you are pro-choice and anti capital punishment but have difficult understanding why others are pro-life and pro capital punishment. Is your own position not as seemingly contradictory as the people you have difficulty with?

JonJoeDali

Meh, the Catholic Church is pro-life and anti capital punishment.

One wonders about all those southern American state bible basher folk.

MrPudding

Nikolas Quick Twerp wrote: »

Let me get this straight: you are pro-choice and anti capital punishment but have difficult understanding why others are pro-life and pro capital punishment. Is your own position not as seemingly contradictory as the people you have difficulty with?

Of course it is contradictory, but I know why, I understand why I hold this particular stance. So I don't really need a thread about that.;)

I am interesting in how people hold the opposite stance. To clarify, my position on abortion is pretty simple. I don't really care for the debate about whether or not the foetus is deserving of protection. I consider it to be human, but I also consider its rights to be lesser in relation to the mother, particularly when it is at an early developmental stage.

With respect to capital punishment we are generally talking about adults. Admittedly they tend to be not exactly the best specimens of humanity, but I am interested in understanding why it is ok to put them to death. In addition, pro-choice proponents are often asked to err on the side of caution when dealing with the question of the rights an foetus should have, surely this direction could also be given to people who advocate capital punishment when one considers the miscarriages of justice which we see on a regular basis.

MrP

MrPudding

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Meh, the Catholic Church is pro-life and anti capital punishment.

One wonders about all those southern American state bible basher folk.

Exactly. The stance of the RCC is exactly what I would expect of christians, it is also the stance of Fanny Craddock, PDN, and quite a few of the regulars on this board. It is sensible, logical and does not need explanation.

It is a apparently contradictory stance I am interested in.

MrP

prinz

I would be anti-abortion 'on demand' and ambivalent to capital punishment in some instances (by which I mean serial killers/mass murderers/genocidal freaks which would result in a handful of executions worldwide). I wouldn't be campaigning for the death penalty to be brought back but at the same time I wouldn't shed a tear for the likes of Nazi top-brass being executed after the war either.)

Simply put some people IMO have voided their rights to life in my view. They had a choice and a free will and chose their path.

On the other hand a foetus has no choice or say in being aborted.

Manach

I'd say that given how many people have a viserical reaction to Capital Punishment (hereinafter CP), it is un-surprising that Religious organisations have had mix-messages on the subject.
According to Prof Jonathon Simon of Berkeley (ITunes), on one hand Christianity has been the more anti Capital Punishment religious (given the fate of its founder) and Evangelicals were especially active during the 19th C in reducing the number of crimes were death was the sentence. In passing, Muslim SE Asian countries were noted as being ones were the next wave of anti-death sentencing was occurring this century.
On the other hand, one of the bulwark supports of CP was the sense of retribution - a biblical an eye for an eye, to avenge the suffering of the victim. In the US this seems most prevalent in the old confederate states such as Texas and Florida.

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

Exactly. The stance of the RCC is exactly what I would expect of christians, it is also the stance of Fanny Craddock, PDN, and quite a few of the regulars on this board. It is sensible, logical and does not need explanation.

It is a apparently contradictory stance I am interested in.

MrP

I don't think alot of Christians are anti capital punishment for the same reason they are anti abortion.

I am not against the IDEA of Capital punishment, but would be very dubious of it in practice. So I'll deal with the IDEA.

With capital punishment, it is the exacting of a punishment on a guilty person. Not the murder of an innocent party. Its not a contradiction to say that I believe in the right to able to walk on O'Connell Street, yet to also hold the view that incarcerated criminals should not be allowed that freedom. No, rather that freedom is forfeit to them due to their guilt as criminals. Similarly, I believe a murderers life is forfeit, but I believe also in mercy. IMO, where we don't have capital punishment, the fact that a murderer is allowed to live should be a mercy and NOT a right.

For abortion, you become the murderer, not the executioner of a criminal.

Thats my position currently, and its open to reasonable debate.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think alot of Christians are anti capital punishment for the same reason they are anti abortion.

OK, so it is not nessecarily the sanctity of life argument...?

JimiTime wrote: »

I am not against the IDEA of Capital punishment, but would be very dubious of it in practice. So I'll deal with the IDEA.

Tell me more about your feelings on the idea of it please?

JimiTime wrote: »

With capital punishment, it is the exacting of a punishment on a guilty person. Not the murder of an innocent party.

There is also an element of revenge, which some, myself included, find unsavoury.

JimiTime wrote: »

Its not a contradiction to say that I believe in the right to able to walk on O'Connell Street, yet to also hold the view that incarcerated criminals should not be allowed that freedom. No, rather that freedom is forfeit to them due to their guilt as criminals. Similarly, I believe a murderers life is forfeit, but I believe also in mercy. IMO, where we don't have capital punishment, the fact that a murderer is allowed to live should be a mercy and NOT a right.

I get the freedom being forfeit, but I just can't make the jump to a murderers life being forfeit.

JimiTime wrote: »

For abortion, you become the murderer, not the executioner of a criminal.

I will not get into the use of the word murder here, my thoughts on its use in this context are similar to describing an abortion as a rape. Similarly, I don't see the use of the word execution as somehow lifting the act above that of a common murder.

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats my position currently, and its open to reasonable debate.

Thank you.

MrP

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, so it is not nessecarily the sanctity of life argument...?

Certainly not when it comes to Capital punishment for me anyway.

Tell me more about your feelings on the idea of it please?

Like what?

There is also an element of revenge, which some, myself included, find unsavoury.

I see what you are saying, but its not necessarily vengeful. Not that I see vengeance as intrinsically bad.

I get the freedom being forfeit, but I just can't make the jump to a murderers life being forfeit.

We're changing the subject now though:) We are now getting into the realm of the rights and wrongs of capital punishment, rather than the OP about what you saw as a possible contradiction of being both anti abortion and pro capital punishment. The analogy was used to show how you can value something, but how things can change when we introduce guilt etc into the equation.

I will not get into the use of the word murder here, my thoughts on its use in this context are similar to describing an abortion as a rape.

Thats fair enough, but you must understand, that if a person is known to God in the womb, then killing that person in the context of Gods divine order WOULD constitute murder. If you do not recognise God, or recognise that a growing child in utero is a person, then I understand that to you it is not murder. The rape thing is entirely different.

Similarly, I don't see the use of the word execution as somehow lifting the act above that of a common murder.

Do you see the words police, judge and prison guard and think 'conspirators to kidnap'?

Thank you.

MrP

No probs.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Certainly not when it comes to Capital punishment for me anyway.

OK, not asking you to answer for anyone else, but do you think this might be the reasoning for some?

JimiTime wrote: »

Like what?

You reasons for thinking the idea if it is ok.

JimiTime wrote: »

I see what you are saying, but its not necessarily vengeful. Not that I see vengeance as intrinsically bad.

I think that vengeance in a pure form is bad for society, doing something simply for revenge is quite destructive.

JimiTime wrote: »

We're changing the subject now though:) We are now getting into the realm of the rights and wrongs of capital punishment, rather than the OP about what you saw as a possible contradiction of being both anti abortion and pro capital punishment. The analogy was used to show how you can value something, but how things can change when we introduce guilt etc into the equation.

I don't think it is a changing of subject, certainly that would not have been the intention. The reason why you think the murders life is forfeit is, I presume, very important in the reasoning you have in relation to CP.

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats fair enough, but you must understand, that if a person is known to God in the womb, then killing that person in the context of Gods divine order WOULD constitute murder. If you do not recognise God, or recognise that a growing child in utero is a person, then I understand that to you it is not murder. The rape thing is entirely different.

I take you point, but I will stick to the legal definition, though admittedly, it might be consider murder in Ireland... I actually don't know.

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you see the words police, judge and prison guard and think 'conspirators to kidnap'?

Not normally, but in some circumstances perhaps.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, not asking you to answer for anyone else, but do you think this might be the reasoning for some?

Make sure you put a JimiTime tag on that.

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, not asking you to answer for anyone else, but do you think this might be the reasoning for some?

Well I would think that most Christians believe in the sanctity of life, and human life above all. Those who soiled themselves with murderous behaviour or anything deemed wicked enough though, were put to death. Their life, abused before God was to be taken from them. God made the distinction, which IMO is an instinctive distinction, in me anyway, between someone who sheds innocent blood, and the punishment dished out to a murderer etc.

You reasons for thinking the idea if it is ok.

Well I don't think its intrinsically wrong to take the life of a serious criminal like a murderer. On some occasions, I think it better. I query the logic in simply caging someone like Charles Manson for instance. I do however, believe in Mercy as a core ideal in any justice system, and believe that this is what allowing a murderer to live should be held up as. A mercy. Even if there is no capital punishment in the state (And I'm glad there isn't), it should still be held up as a mercy and not a right. the trouble with the justice systems I am familiar with, is that they do nothing right. Mercy, punishment, protection or rehabilitation. IMO, the priorities should be in this order: 1. Protection of society(the innocent) 2. Mercy (of both the innocent and the guilty) 3. Rehabilitation of the criminal 4. Punishment. Now punishment can be part of all of these things, but the motive is what I'm getting at.

I think that vengeance in a pure form is bad for society, doing something simply for revenge is quite destructive.

Couldn't agree more.

I don't think it is a changing of subject, certainly that would not have been the intention. The reason why you think the murders life is forfeit is, I presume, very important in the reasoning you have in relation to CP.

I don't think you deserve the right to live if you take the life of an innocent person. That does not mean to say that I believe you should be killed, but I do believe that its mercy that should be keeping you alive and not a right to life. I would however, like nothing better than see a person repent and reform. Locking them out of site for 8 years is not my idea of Rehab, Mercy, punishment or protection of the innocent and thus it is unjust.

I take you point, but I will stick to the legal definition, though admittedly, it might be consider murder in Ireland... I actually don't know.

I actually asked this in the legal forum before, and don't think it is considered murder. I think its deemed ABH on the mother or something to that effect IIRC.

Not normally.

MrP

And therein lies the difference between the murderer and the executioner also.

Festus

I'm pro-choice on this.
The victim(s) should be given the right to choose if the perpetrator gets terminated. Upon conviction of course, no point killing someone innocent now is there.
In difficult cases the State can and should intervene and order the termination for the sake of the victim, especially if they can't make their mind up. Anyway, it costs a lot to house, feed, water and entertain criminals and we don't have much to be spending on them anymore. So the sooner the better too. Definitely sooner. If there is any chance they were actually innocent they were probably guilty of something else and it will save money in the long run. Relatives are so much easier to pay off.

The State needs to make laws on how they are to be terminated.
Some method that is reasonably swift and relatively painless and will ideally reduce the psychological imact on the executioner, poor thing. It's a job but... and not many of them these days. Long term illness benefit due to occupational disability brought on by the trauma of killing other humans, especially when you can see them is expensive so any method that keeps the condemned out of aural and visual, especially visual, contact with the professional is a to be recommended.

So keep it cheap, austerity and all that.
No expensive drugs and anyway medical protocols prevent the use of doctors.
No expensive gas chambers - need to be aware of global warming and greenhouse gases.
No electric chairs - leckky supply directors will be looking for more bonuses for their involvement. Plus there's the global warming impact.

Millstones and lakes might be an idea though.

Merry Christmas everyone :cool:

georgieporgy

Plus, if I might add, I don't think it's been scientifically proven that criminals feel pain when executed.

Festus

MrPudding wrote: »

I think it will interesting to discuss why the committing of a crime can be considered reason enough to suspend the rights bestowed upon conception.

That's easy. Murderers are not persons. Everybody knows this, and if they don't they should, and if they disagree then they don't understand what they're taking about or they've been brainwashed, indoctrinated and misguided.

I really don't understand people who don't get this. It's not just any old crime that warrants the death penalty or the death sentence. No point calling it Capita Punishment or CP. That's just far too PC and sanitary and besides and they don't derserve it. They deserve death

You see, it's simlple. Every human being is a potential criminal. Not every person turns criminal and not everybody turns murderer. Only some. Very few in fact. It's actually remarkably rare give the number of people on the planet. Take Ireland for example, 4 to 5 million. If murder was a natural human function, like thinking, breathing, having consiousness, being able to reason, be capable of complex communication and being self aware we'd all be doing it. Well, maybe not all but a lot. There'd be 100,000 or more murders A DAY, never mind a year. But that doesn't happen so it cannot be considered a human function.
Have you tried communication with a criminal? They're not being on complex communication. Have you tried to reason with one? That doesn't work either. Self aware? Hardly. If they were they wouldn't have killed another human. I guess that means no empathy either - note to self, bring that up and the next ethics committe meeting "human persons display empathy, non-person humans don't. Should be able to set up a scientific test for it - get the psychology people on to it" .

You see. Murderers are not persons. They're probably human beings because they were once but clearly something changed. Might have been relatively quickly, might have taken a while to develop but something changed and they became something human but not really a human being anymore in the sense that they are still persons. I don't really understand it that well as it's all ethics and philosophy and such like. Not my area. I prefer the scientific reasons provided by the psychologists. They're really very very good. They can show you exactly how a murderer, or any criminal really, is so markedly different to anything we recognise as a human person. Can't argue with it really. I tried once, being pro-life and all that but their science was irrefutably convincing.

Now murderers are easy. So are rapists, child molesters, child pornographers, drug dealers, bankers, politicians. None display any empathy, ability to reason, critical thinking, self awareness, etc. They have a consciousness of sorts I suppose.

So, that's it. They're not human. Well humanish but not persons. Why should they have rights if they're not persons.

Some would argue that by doing things other human beings don't is going beyond being human, some function of evolution, displaying a beneficial trait but I would argue that they are then super human. Well, super human is not human. Human is human. A human being is a human being. A super human being is not a human being because it is a super human being, so they are definitely not a person anymore.

Oh, by the way, if I was murdered I wouldn't ask for the death penalty. That's why I'm on the right to choose side rather than being full on in your face pro-death penalty. Sorry, pro-CP is what we have to call it now in case we alienate the undecideds. Bloody fence sitters - hope they get roids! Really itchy ones on the inside too. But back to the murderers. I really don't see why they should benefit from knowing when they are going to die. Why should they? They might do something silly like go to confession or if they're not already Catholics, convert, get confession, score a few indulgences and get themselves a one way ticket to Heaven. Can't have that. If I was murdered now I'd probably wind up in Purgatory for a few millennia so why would I want my murderer in Heaven before me. Pah!
However I fully support the right to choose the death penalty for any other murder victim or victim of a crime that carries the death sentence as an option. The option should be there for all to avail of whether they want to or not.

:cool:

BTW. There's no point trying to convince me otherwise. I've been to the prisons and seen them. They're definitely not human. I've seen pictures of them before when they were human and if they hadn't murdered they'd be fine. I'd fight for their lives. But once they murder they change. Like I said, I wouldn't have one killed myself but it's your right to choose and if it isn't it should be.

God bless America. If it wasn't for the US Constitution the world would be flooded with unwanted criminals.

hinault

I am very much anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment for the record.

Festus

Manach wrote: »

Christianity has been the more anti Capital Punishment religious (given the fate of its founder) and Evangelicals were especially active during the 19th C in reducing the number of crimes were death was the sentence.

That doesn't make sense. What if He was born in a country with no death penalty? Where would Christianity be of the Romans had gone all PC and banned the death penalty in all their dominions?

Can't answer that now can you

If He was born today in Ireland he'd have to go abroad wouldn't He. Export the problem. That's what those laws really mean. You don't want your "criminals" killed here so you have to sent them somewhere else to get it done.

Of course, Jesus isn't a criminal. If He was born in Ireland today you'ld have to bring a test case to the European Courts and pretend He is a criminal and get them to make the law for us so we could kill real criminals.

Festus

hinault wrote: »

I am very much anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment for the record.

so what's you're answer to the unwanted criminals? No one is going to adopt them.

Do you not think we should send them to America, or Iran, or China?
and how much is that going to cost? No we need to sort them out here where its less expensive and we can be sure it is being done properly. You really can't trust those foreign methods. :cool:

antiskeptic

Festus wrote:

Now murderers are easy. So are rapists, child molesters, child pornographers, drug dealers, bankers, politicians. None display any empathy, ability to reason, critical thinking, self awareness, etc. They have a consciousness of sorts I suppose.

And the fact that Jesus came to save such as these - indeed, he underscored that fact by hanging around with them (a 'tax collector' in his day would be on a par with banker/developer/Bertie Ahern in ours)??

What about his countering the deadly tendency towards self-righteousness with his equating anger > murder and lust > adultery? You have been unrighteously angry with another I take it? And lusted after a woman? Could you explain why, in God's eyes, you are any less deserving of capital punishment than they are??

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

I am interesting in how people hold the opposite stance.

Let me try to deal with this logically


There is the catholic christian people Group CC
Who agree with preserving the unborn - call it U
and agree with preserving the born - call it B

there are the "right wing authoritarians" for want of a better term Group RWA
They believe U
but believe "NOT B"

There are the people like you Group PLU
You believe " not U"
but believe B

now assume CC believes U for reasons xyz and B for reasons abc
For CC xyz and abc are probably an identity e.g. they believe ALL life should be preserved.


Assuming RWA believe xyz and do not believe abc but believe hij instead

And PLU dont believe xyz (say they believe klm instead ) and they also believe abc

Now here is the issue.

You are saying:

you can't understand how RWA can advocate U based on xyz and go against B based on hij
is more reasonable than

PLU advocating B based on abc but going against U based on klm.

How is it more reasonable

The problem it seems to me is your advocacy of abc involves the identity with xyz

In short,

As others have pointed out saying life is sacred for one group but not for another involves the same contradiction for your group as it does for right wing authoritarians.

MrPudding

ISAW wrote: »

As others have pointed out saying life is sacred for one group but not for another involves the same contradiction for your group as it does for right wing authoritarians.

I know very well about the contradiction in my stance, though I don't necessarily come at it form a life is sacred point of view.

What I am interesting in is how the mere act of being a criminal is sufficient to void the life of the criminal.

Festus has given a thorough answer which I want to look at in more detail.

MrP

MrPudding

Festus wrote: »

I'm pro-choice on this.
The victim(s) should be given the right to choose if the perpetrator gets terminated. Upon conviction of course, no point killing someone innocent now is there.

Absolutely not. Luckily we never have cases of an innocent person being found guilty in error... oh wait...

Festus wrote: »

In difficult cases the State can and should intervene and order the termination for the sake of the victim, especially if they can't make their mind up. Anyway, it costs a lot to house, feed, water and entertain criminals and we don't have much to be spending on them anymore. So the sooner the better too. Definitely sooner. If there is any chance they were actually innocent they were probably guilty of something else and it will save money in the long run. Relatives are so much easier to pay off........... lots of other stuff......more stuff

Are you actually being serious with this opinion or are you taking the piss?

MrP

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

I know very well about the contradiction in my stance, though I don't necessarily come at it form a life is sacred point of view.

What I am interesting in is how the mere act of being a criminal is sufficient to void the life of the criminal.

Festus has given a thorough answer which I want to look at in more detail.

MrP

I am personally opposed to both abortion and the death penalty.

However, I think it is unfair to accuse of hypocrisy those who are 'pro-life' and also support capital punishment. The teaching of Jesus, and indeed many of the Old Testament prophets, is that we should show extra compassion to the weak and defenceless. You can't get much more weak and defenceless than an unborn baby. So, I can see the logic behind someone being against abortion, but supporting the execution of mass-murderers.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

I am personally opposed to both abortion and the death penalty.

However, I think it is unfair to accuse of hypocrisy those who are 'pro-life' and also support capital punishment. The teaching of Jesus, and indeed many of the Old Testament prophets, is that we should show extra compassion to the weak and defenceless. You can't get much more weak and defenceless than an unborn baby. So, I can see the logic behind someone being against abortion, but supporting the execution of mass-murderers.

For the record, I am not accusing anyone of hypocrisy, I am merely interested in the reasoning. The view that you, Fanny and many other have is the one that I would consider to be more "correct." It is the view I would expect of a christian. Considering I am for the saving of criminals and the aborting of "innocent" foetuses* I am not really in a position to call anyone a hypocrite.

MrP





*"For" in the sense that I believe it should be an option for a woman should she so choose, not "for" in the sense that I think everyone should try one.

Zombrex

I guess it depends on the way the person views life in the first place.

If the person thinks it is justified to punish, even with death, the guilty then there is no contradiction, since the fetus is considered innocent.

If on the other hand the person felt that only God is authorized to terminate life then there would be a contradiction as this would not just protect the fetus but also a guilty adult.

But then the latter probably wouldn't be pro-captial punishment, so it is probably safe to assume that if someone is anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment then they are the former.

Festus

MrPudding wrote: »

. Considering I am for the saving of criminals and the aborting of "innocent" foetuses* I am not really in a position to call anyone a hypocrite.

Why save them? What value do they have? I've already made it quite clear they are have no value as persons. They are a burden to the state and if they don't get put away for life where life means life they present a real and substantial risk to the life of the citizens. Putting them in an enclosed space with other lesser criminals ( car thieves and mortgage defaulters for example) can only exacerbate that risk

MrPudding

Festus wrote: »

I've already made it quite clear they are have no value as persons.

No, you haven't. You have made it quite clear that, in your opinion they are of no value.

Festus wrote: »

They are a burden to the state and if they don't get put away for life where life means life they present a real and substantial risk to the life of the citizens.

Are you perhaps making a rather sweeping generalisation? What, or who, precisely, do you mean by "they" is it all murderers or some some? Not all murderers present an ongoing risk to society. Additionally, it is questionable whether it is cheaper to put people to death than keep than keep them in prison until they die. Unless, of course, you would also advocate doing away with the expensive stuff like proper defence teams, appeals, experts and compensation for families when they inevitably kill an innocent person.

Festus wrote: »

Putting them in an enclosed space with other lesser criminals ( car thieves and mortgage defaulters for example) can only exacerbate that risk

Agreed, absolutely. But that is probably more of a comment about whether the car thieves and mortgage defaulters should be in the same place a murderers, or perhaps if they should be in prison at all. But then that is for another thread, probably on a different forum.

MrP

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Why save them? What value do they have? I've already made it quite clear they are have no value as persons. They are a burden to the state and if they don't get put away for life where life means life they present a real and substantial risk to the life of the citizens. Putting them in an enclosed space with other lesser criminals ( car thieves and mortgage defaulters for example) can only exacerbate that risk

In order to avoid falling foul of a well-known internet discussion forum law, allow me to simply re-accent/word Festus' diatrabe.

Herr Festus wrote: »

Vy sayf zem? Vat value do zey haf? I'yf alreadzee mate it qwyte clear zey haf no value as persons. Zey are a burden to ze Fatherland and if zey don't get put away for ze life - where life is a Final Solution, zey prezent a real und substantial risk to ze life of ze volk. Putting zem in an enclosed kamp vit other, lesser unterlingen (car ztieves und mortgage defaulters und Juden for example) can only exacerbate zat risk

Festus

MrPudding wrote: »

Are you perhaps making a rather sweeping generalisation?

and the law doesn't ?

ISAW

Festus wrote: »

Murderers are not persons. ...

BTW. There's no point trying to convince me otherwise. I've been to the prisons and seen them. They're definitely not human.

Do you know what a bigot is?
This idea that criminals are not persons is not a Christian point of view. Christ clearly believed they were people. He forgave them and died with them.

I've seen pictures of them before when they were human and if they hadn't murdered they'd be fine.

You can tell by the picture?

I'd fight for their lives. But once they murder they change. Like I said, I wouldn't have one killed myself but it's your right to choose and if it isn't it should be.

so the distinction you are making is the unborn have no choice and therefore should not be killed because they are innocent. You clearly don't believe in original sin or salvation. The Christian idea is that the sin of Adam or any other sin can be redeemed.

On what basis is the ability to chose sufficient grounds to claim that making the wrong chose warrants the removal of life. This applies even if some entity is not human. for example we might not execute an animal just because they did something we deem wrong.

God bless America. If it wasn't for the US Constitution the world would be flooded with unwanted criminals.

It does not have jurisdiction outside of American territory. Hence Guantanamo where they can ignore the constitutional provisions.

ISAW

Festus wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. What if He was born in a country with no death penalty? Where would Christianity be of the Romans had gone all PC and banned the death penalty in all their dominions?

Can't answer that now can you

It was a travesty then and he didn't break any law. Just like the Birmingham six Guildford four Mc Guire Seven etc. who all would have been given the death penalty.

Festus wrote: »

so what's you're answer to the unwanted criminals? No one is going to adopt them.

Need we apply this to the disabled and old as well to show youthe problem with that argument?

Do you not think we should send them to America, or Iran, or China?
and how much is that going to cost? No we need to sort them out here where its less expensive and we can be sure it is being done properly. You really can't trust those foreign methods. :cool:

In fact death row costs a fortune.

MrPudding wrote: »

What I am interesting in is how the mere act of being a criminal is sufficient to void the life of the criminal.

The principle is whether there are crimes which warrant taking away someones life.
In fact some would claim that there aren't crimes without mens rea . maclice of forethought is conscious and informed and is a determining factor in murder as opposed to manslaughter. Unborn children don't have this faculty. So that would be an argument for death penalty but not abortion for example.

PDN wrote: »

The teaching of Jesus, and indeed many of the Old Testament prophets, is that we should show extra compassion to the weak and defenceless. You can't get much more weak and defenceless than an unborn baby. So, I can see the logic behind someone being against abortion, but supporting the execution of mass-murderers.

The is isn't the issue. the issue isn't about only mass murderers but about anyone found guilty of any capital crime.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

That's easy. Murderers are not persons. Everybody knows this, and if they don't they should, and if they disagree then they don't understand what they're taking about or they've been brainwashed, indoctrinated and misguided.

Murder is unlawful killing. Given that law changes rather a lot it is a bit illogical to make a claim about the state or properties of a person based on whether they are considered to have murdered someone or not.

What was murder or not murder often comes down to simply a matter of opinion. To take a topical case, the Wikileaks video showing the US Air Force men shooting the journalists and then the people attempting to carry away the bodies.

Some view that as a legitimate war time killing, others consider it unlawful killing (ie murder).

Now, I'm not sure what supernatural elements you believe are in play, but from a physical point of view these people were not flipping between "human" and "not human" as people in the media and wider world were debating whether or not it was or wasn't murder, one minute they are humans when people say it was lawful killing, the next they are inhuman monsters when people say no it was murder.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Murder is unlawful killing.

Premeditated and planned killing.

Given that law changes rather a lot it is a bit illogical to make a claim about the state or properties of a person based on whether they are considered to have murdered someone or not.

No the point is I think that a murderer is not a person. Can you remove the right to a person by changing the law? What then is an "inalienable" right?

What was murder or not murder often comes down to simply a matter of opinion.

Back to the relativism that you say you do not follow? It isnt a matter of opinion it is a matter of law.

To take a topical case, the Wikileaks video showing the US Air Force men shooting the journalists and then the people attempting to carry away the bodies.

Some view that as a legitimate war time killing, others consider it unlawful killing (ie murder).

Except "unlawful killing" and "murder " are different in the eyes of the law.
Yes the same act can be considered in a different light depending on the opinion regarding mens rea in criminal law but that does not remove the legal fact that should such mens rea exist and actus rei have occurred then it is murder by definition!

Now, I'm not sure what supernatural elements you believe are in play, but from a physical point of view these people were not flipping between "human" and "not human" as people

Ah there's the rub! and the unborn was flipping between being a person and not being a person?

in the media and wider world were debating whether or not it was or wasn't murder, one minute they are humans when people say it was lawful killing, the next they are inhuman monsters when people say no it was murder.

I declare to my antimacassar if you took up a straw from the bloody floor and if you said to Bloom: LOOK AT, BLOOM. DO YOU SEE THAT STRAW? THAT'S A STRAW. Declare to my aunt he'd talk about it for an hour so he would and talk steady..."ben Bloom Elijah amid clouds of angels ascend to the glory of the brightness at an angle of fortyfive degrees over Donohue's in Little Green Street like a shot off a shovel" (Ulysses 12.561).

It might not make him the Messiah but it would not stop a straw being a straw.

housetypeb

Festus wrote: »

That's easy. Murderers are not persons. Everybody knows this, and if they don't they should, and if they disagree then they don't understand what they're taking about or they've been brainwashed, indoctrinated and misguided.

I really don't understand people who don't get this. It's not just any old crime that warrants the death penalty or the death sentence. No point calling it Capita Punishment or CP. That's just far too PC and sanitary and besides and they don't derserve it. They deserve death........

You see. Murderers are not persons. They're probably human beings because they were once but clearly something changed.........

Now murderers are easy. So are rapists, child molesters, child pornographers, drug dealers, bankers, politicians. None display any empathy, ability to reason, critical thinking, self awareness, etc. They have a consciousness of sorts I suppose..

I'm not really sure if you're being serious here or not, but since you also believe that abortion is akin to murder would that also mean that women who have had abortions are considered murderers and thus non persons and so should face the death penalty?

georgieporgy

Festus wrote: »

so what's you're answer to the unwanted criminals? No one is going to adopt them.

Do you not think we should send them to America, or Iran, or China?
and how much is that going to cost? No we need to sort them out here where its less expensive and we can be sure it is being done properly. You really can't trust those foreign methods. :cool:

Great posts Festus. I haven't laughed so much in ages. I think you forgot one point - in non-choice countries where CP is still illegal some criminals have been known to attempt to kill themselves with coathangers! Such needless suffering! And sometimes they don't succeed and they remain vegetables ( I know they weren't persons in the proper sense of the word in the first place but now they are vegetables and have to be taken care of):pac:

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Premeditated and planned killing.

True, though not central to my point.

ISAW wrote: »

No the point is I think that a murderer is not a person. Can you remove the right to a person by changing the law? What then is an "inalienable" right?

I wouldn't consider being considered a "person" as a right, more a classification. Someone is or isn't a person based on the properties they hold, not whether we consider they have a right to be a person.

A person can have rights and a person can forefit their rights by say committing a murder, but I would find it bizarre the suggestion that they stop being a "person", as if they some how physically change.

ISAW wrote: »

Back to the relativism that you say you do not follow? It isnt a matter of opinion it is a matter of law.

I'm not following what you mean. Laws are made by people based on their opinions.

ISAW wrote: »

Except "unlawful killing" and "murder " are different in the eyes of the law.

Not exactly, murder is a form of unlawful killing. So is manslaughter. As you said above murder is unlawful killing with premeditated malice

ISAW wrote: »

Yes the same act can be considered in a different light depending on the opinion regarding mens rea in criminal law but that does not remove the legal fact that should such mens rea exist and actus rei have occurred then it is murder by definition!

And? I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said?

ISAW wrote: »

Ah there's the rub! and the unborn was flipping between being a person and not being a person?

No, the physical properties of the unborn do not flip between two states because we are changing our minds. The unborn baby stays the same. As does the murderer. Which was my point.

Festus is implying that a murderer is not a human person. Where they never a human person, do they stop being a human person when they kill someone or just when we decide it was a murder. And if we decide actually it wasn't murder do they change back to being a human?

ISAW wrote: »

I declare to my antimacassar if you took up a straw from the bloody floor and if you said to Bloom: LOOK AT, BLOOM. DO YOU SEE THAT STRAW? THAT'S A STRAW. Declare to my aunt he'd talk about it for an hour so he would and talk steady..."ben Bloom Elijah amid clouds of angels ascend to the glory of the brightness at an angle of fortyfive degrees over Donohue's in Little Green Street like a shot off a shovel" (Ulysses 12.561).

It might not make him the Messiah but it would not stop a straw being a straw.

Ok...

MrPudding

Festus wrote: »

and the law doesn't ?

It doesn't really have a choice, we can't have individual laws for each person, so we have to have generalised laws that are a compromise between catching as many bad guys as possible whilst not criminalising people that should not be criminalised. So, yes, the law is to an extent a sweeping generalisation, but that is simply because it has to be. Deciding that all criminals or murders are sub human and do not deserve to live is a generalisation of a completely different kind.

Additionally, a couple of hundred years ago when children were put to death for stealing food, where they sub human as well? Where they no longer human or entitled to human treatment?

ISAW wrote: »

In fact death row costs a fortune.

I was looking at this today, I think it really depends on how you do it. If you do it the Chinese way, then I reckon it is pretty cheap. But, if you do it the "civilised" way, with proper trials, decent legal teams, appeals, experts and compensation when you get it wrong, then the economic argument for killing someone rather than imprisoning them for life is not so strong. Something tells me that Festus might err more toward the Chinese method...;)

ISAW wrote: »

The principle is whether there are crimes which warrant taking away someones life.
In fact some would claim that there aren't crimes without mens rea . maclice of forethought is conscious and informed and is a determining factor in murder as opposed to manslaughter. Unborn children don't have this faculty. So that would be an argument for death penalty but not abortion for example.

With the exception of crimes of strict liability, of which murder is not one, there is no crime without mens rea. Even assuming there is mens rea, the person intended to cause death or really serious harm and his act caused the death of the victim, and he is therefore a murderer, I can't see why this should automatically lead to a forfeiture of life.

I don't think anyone would argue that a foetus is aborted because of its guilty mind, or evil intention or some criminal act, so I doubt anyone would try to raise this as a justification for abortion.

MrP

MrPudding

ISAW wrote: »

Except "unlawful killing" and "murder " are different in the eyes of the law.

Murder is a flavour of unlawful killing. All murders are unlawful killing but not all unlawful killings are murders.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes the same act can be considered in a different light depending on the opinion regarding mens rea in criminal law but that does not remove the legal fact that should such mens rea exist and actus rei have occurred then it is murder by definition!

No. Murder requires a very specific mens rea to be a murderer the person need to intend to cause death or really serious harm. The person may has mens rea, he may intend harm, but unless it is the specific mens rea above it is not murder.

ISAW wrote: »

Premeditated and planned killing.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not exactly, murder is a form of unlawful killing. So is manslaughter. As you said above murder is unlawful killing with premeditated malice

Unless homicide rules are different in Ireland than in the UK this is not really correct. Premeditation and planning are not necessarily for murder. When deciding if the accused has the required mens rea for murder premeditation and planning can be taken as indications of this, but they are not required for a person to be found guilty of murder.

Murder is the top of the pile, whether it was planned, premeditated or spur of the moment is not relevent, as long as it can be shown the person intended to cause death or really serious harm, and that his act caused the death, then it is murder.

MrP

Manach

MrPudding: Hi, but on a legal point I'd thought that unless there was a Mens Rea that included provable planning/premediation (ie direct intent in most cases except for the oblique intent subsection) that if convicted the defendant slips into the Manslaughter catagory?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

PDN

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To be fair, most of them don't advocate crucifixion as their preferred mode of execution.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding

Manach wrote: »

MrPudding: Hi, but on a legal point I'd thought that unless there was a Mens Rea that included provable planning/premediation (ie direct intent in most cases except for the oblique intent subsection) that if convicted the defendant slips into the Manslaughter catagory?

Mens rea simply means the guilty mind, and there are many that think it is not a useful term. Direct intention does not require planning and / or premeditation. Planning and premeditation can indicate that there was intention, but they are not necessary. It is possible for someone to have the requisite mens rea for murder without planning or premeditation. If this was not the case then people that kill in the heat of the moment could never be guilty of murder.

So, for example, imagine you had a guy that was really annoying you and you decided to teach him a lesson. You might plan to meet him in a dark alley and rough him up a bit. You intend to scare him and maybe hurt him a little, but he falls, hits his head and dies. Have you murdered him? As far as the law is concerned, no.

Contrast this with meeting the same guy who annoys you again and it is the straw that breaks the camels back. You lose your temper and stick a screwdriver though his eye, killing him. You did not plan it, it was not premeditated but it is likely to be murder. Arguably there may not be direct intention, but at the very least there is oblique intention.

I think people might be getting confused with first degree murder in the US. That said, I could be completely wrong as I am talking from a UK perspective, though it seems that Irish law is very similar.

MrP

MrPudding

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree. Particularly given how prone the justice system is to error.

MrP

JimiTime

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you have issue with the idea of a death sentence, or is it the practice, and the lack of trust in the system that would put you off it? If you are against it as an idea, then what do you think regarding God commanding his people Israel carry out execution of certain criminals?

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

I agree. Particularly given how prone the justice system is to error.

MrP

To be clear, this would be a big part of my objection to the practice of capital punishment.

JimiTime

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think advocates of capital punishment, advocate the killing of the innocent. Again though, if your example is to point out the practicalities of it, then I hear ye! If your objection is about the actual 'idea' of it though, then my previous question stands.

Festus

housetypeb wrote: »

I'm not really sure if you're being serious here or not, but since you also believe that abortion is akin to murder would that also mean that women who have had abortions are considered murderers and thus non persons and so should face the death penalty?

You do know that it is illegal in this country, Yes?

It's also illegal in this country to have sex with 13 year olds, right?

So if an Irish person goes to Spain, picks up a 13 year old and has sex with them are they paedophiles?

Festus

MrPudding wrote: »

Deciding that all criminals or murders are sub human and do not deserve to live is a generalisation of a completely different kind.

Read me again. It's all about how developed the criminal is. Low level criminality like thievery isn't sufficient. High level criminality like rape and murder displays a different quality of criminal.

Take the worst criminal abduction rape and murder you can think of. Does it make you feel sick? Do you understand how the mind of that criminal worked while he (could be a she) did the deeds? Can you get comfortable inside that mind? Normal human minds cannot therefore it is not a human mind that carries out these acts. The have a different personality, a personality so different it is not in any way the same as those of persons who don't do these things. So it's not the same as a person. It's not a person. It's human but not a person.

MrPudding wrote: »

With the exception of crimes of strict liability, of which murder is not one, there is no crime without mens rea. Even assuming there is mens rea, the person intended to cause death or really serious harm and his act caused the death of the victim, and he is therefore a murderer, I can't see why this should automatically lead to a forfeiture of life.

Because it isn't a person. It's a human that has clearly demonstrated that it is not part of human society. It does things normal humans don't not because it's mentally ill but because it wants to. How can you consider something that is clearly cabable of the most antisocial behaviour possible resulting in ultimately the death or psychological destruction of a person a person? If it's not a person it has no right to life.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.