This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
The fact that they are in prison says they did willfully infringe on the rights of others.
I'm going to say that prison is less infringement on liberty than death is an alienation of life.
Post by
Adamsm
/shrug We have different views on the death penalty, but if someone takes someone else life over something stupid(IE being cheated/cheating on, while trying to steal, in a rage over a fight) then they should lose some of their rights.
Post by
Skithus
By that logic we shouldn't be able to imprison anyone either, since that would be a violation of their inalienable right to Liberty. And its probably fairly difficult to pursue happiness inside a federal prison.
So if we then consider that a criminal has by actions committed waved his inalienable rights, at least temporarily, Its not much of a stretch to say that the government can kill them also.
EDIT: In addition, it wouldn't really be the government deciding if someone died, but rather a jury of his peers.
I don't believe someone in prison has lost all of his liberty, as a person who suffers capitol punishment has lost all of his life. A person in prison should have the liberty of religion, beliefs, his/her own body, etc. Just because a person doesn't have liberty of movement, doesn't mean they have no liberty. I would say that a person should have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as long as their actions do not willfully infringe on those rights of others.
Right, but in the case of someone convicted of murder 1, I think its fairly obvious that they have willfully infringed on the rights of their victim(s). So by your own words said individual should no longer have aforementioned inalienable rights.
---
Back to this story, unless evidence to the contrary is provided, you can't assume either of these women knew that causing this child to run around for 3 hours would lead to her death. I'd be surprised if either of these women even knew what an electrolyte was.
This also isn't any different then how punishment in sports or the military often works. I recall back in middle-school if you showed up late for football practice the coach just made you do laps the entire practice. So about two hours, in full gear. The human body is typically able to withstand such rigors. In this case its likely that her bladder control issue caused her to already be poorly hydrated.
I think its an unfortunate accident, and that the lowest rank of manslaughter is about all they should get. Definitely not death.
Post by
MyTie
Right, but in the case of someone convicted of murder 1, I think its fairly obvious that they have willfully infringed on the rights of their victim(s). So by your own words said individual should no longer have aforementioned inalienable rights.
I'd agree that for the defense of society, some liberties can be infringed, but I don't think that we should enable government to infringe on the right to life. That isn't a power I trust with government.
Post by
Skithus
Right, but in the case of someone convicted of murder 1, I think its fairly obvious that they have willfully infringed on the rights of their victim(s). So by your own words said individual should no longer have aforementioned inalienable rights.
I'd agree that for the defense of society, some liberties can be infringed, but I don't think that we should enable government to infringe on the right to life. That isn't a power I trust with government.
again, it's not the government who decides. Its a jury of your peers.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
"Is this an ant trial?"
Post by
MyTie
again, it's not the government who decides. Its a jury of your peers.
A jury of the peers would be a part of the judicial branch at that point. I trust peers more than I do a justice, but at the same point, there are some things that the jury, even acting as part of the judicial branch, cannot sentence someone to, nor should they be able to, even if it were "fair". For instance, they shouldn't be able to sentence a rapist to be raped.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
If they send him to general population, they kind of do.
Post by
Skithus
again, it's not the government who decides. Its a jury of your peers.
A jury of the peers would be a part of the judicial branch at that point. I trust peers more than I do a justice, but at the same point, there are some things that the jury, even acting as part of the judicial branch, cannot sentence someone to, nor should they be able to, even if it were "fair". For instance, they shouldn't be able to sentence a rapist to be raped.
I feel death is the more humane approach then life in prison without possibility of parole, because basicly the latter is you sentencing them to be raped, repeatedly, for the remainder of their life.
Post by
Magician22773
MyTie,
I agree with you 100% that is it difficult to be both Pro Life, and Pro Death Penalty. However, I can justify it with myself by simply saying the unborn baby has done nothing to deserve to die. It is innocence at its greatest, where criminals that have committed the ultimate crime deserve the ultimate penalty.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't think it's conflicting to be pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, either, based on what Magician said. I think that a child who has done no harm deserves to live. I think a man who cold-bloodedly murdered 3 people for money deserves to die.
I just don't think his neighbors kids deserve to die to flush him out.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
So wait, you hate the idea of prisons, but you'd still have them
along with
the unconstitutional deathtrap?
I'm confused
Post by
Azazel
How would that make us more humane than them?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I still think, in regards to murderers and rapists, you just put them in a room with the family/survivors of the attack and look away from 5 minutes....guy dealt with, no need to spend money on him for life in prison.
Post by
Skithus
What I propose is this: You take piece of wilderness, surround it by fence, guard the fence and just drop prisoners in there, with tracking devices on them. If they survive the period given to them by court, tack them down and set them free. If not, well, it is their fault for getting there to begin with. Not all criminals should go there, though. Target groups would be murderers, rapists and terrorists (adjustable list). Crimes of lower degree can still go to ordinary prison (again adjustable).
soo... Australia... 2.0?
Post by
MyTie
I don't think it's conflicting to be pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, either, based on what Magician said. I think that a child who has done no harm deserves to live. I think a man who cold-bloodedly murdered 3 people for money deserves to die.
I just don't think his neighbors kids deserve to die to flush him out.
It isn't that the child deserves to live and the criminal deserves to die. I agree with that. I just don't think government should have the POWER to decide who doesn't deserve life. I reject the idea that government has the ability to make abortion legal.
So, I think one could be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but one cannot be as completely, totally, and fundamentally as pro-life as I am, and still be pro-death penalty. I reject the entire core of abortion rights. With it goes any policy that compromises that position. I'll compromise on anything... anything... before I compromise on abortion.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- that makes sense.
Post by
MyTie
I don't get how requiring
voters to have ID disenfranchises minorities
. Could someone explain that to me please.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.