Jump to: Board index
November 1st, 2009, 2:52 pm
November 1st, 2009, 6:18 pm
November 1st, 2009, 7:07 pm
November 3rd, 2009, 1:23 pm
Scott wrote:I don't want one group of society setting up rules for the rest of society for which they will punish those other members for committing.
Scott wrote:I oppose the use of murder as protection, an example of which would be if I murdered or threatened to murder the 'innocent' children of a murder as a way to convince him not to murder me or someone else. In contrast, I do support non-murderous homicide against an attacker (not an 'innocent' bystander) if necessary to stop the attacker, as necessary to stop the attacker but not in excess.
November 3rd, 2009, 4:19 pm
Scott wrote:That defensive force incidentally causes pain to the attacker. That pain could be called the "natural consequence" of his attack or attempted attack. So in that way I agree with you. But that pain is caused not for the sake of causing it, in other words not because we want to cause him pain per se. That pain is an indirect result of our choice to defend ourselves to protect lives from attack. This is different than saying suffering caused to the murderer is desirable in itself out of some sadistic pleasure of revenge.
November 4th, 2009, 12:38 am
Scott wrote:I do not think punishment is desirable at all.
Scott wrote:When causing pain to someone is necessary, i.e. when one initiates violence making it necessary that someone feel pain, if possible I prefer to reflect that pain back at the one who made it necessary than have it hurt an 'innocent' person. For me and my desires and feelings, it's the choice of the lesser of two undesirable outcomes.
Scott wrote:Regardless, I think we can easily agree that you can't rehabilitate or train someone by murdering them. Dead people can't learn.
November 4th, 2009, 3:24 pm
Scott wrote:No, I am not saying that it is desirable that we cause suffering to an attacker because it makes him suffer the consequences (which we thereby have created) of his actions. Again, it is not desirable in itself at all. In itself only, hurting the attacker against his will is undesirable in any case. Still, hurting the attacker is less undesirable than letting his attacks hurt others.
Juice wrote:What does deterrent mean? This is just more leftist social justice redirection to attempt to create an argument against "capital punishment" that makes no logical sense.
November 4th, 2009, 5:47 pm
November 5th, 2009, 6:35 pm
Juice wrote:PJ-In context of the nature of this discussion "punishment" is "retribution". LEX TALENS
November 8th, 2009, 3:57 am
Juice wrote:Both deal with revenge but a warranted kind of revenge from the Roman rather than Talmudic interpretation.
Juice wrote:Admittedly, it is extremely difficult to discuss or argue this topic without injecting concepts of morality whether personal, universal, religious or otherwise. Considering the confusion concepts of morality seem to evoke I must make an argument aside from concepts of morality since that will only open me up to questioning my rights to force my concepts of morality on anyone else.
Juice wrote:But just to make it clear that I am not fearful to discuss my moral philosophy I will do so. Not as an argument for this topic, but so we are clear where my beliefs are grounded even though I will not make an argument using those precepts, in this topic, which for me are grounded in Judeo-Christian doctrines from which my ideas of morality, right and wrong and personal conduct are formed and to which I try my best to emulate out of love (and fear) for God and no man.
Juice wrote:I believe I have put forth a cogent argument for my rationals in favor of keeping the death penalty as part of judicial responsibility. This discussion could enter into law philosophy or philosophy of law which is discussed ad infinitum by people better prepared for those arguments than I am.
Juice wrote:why can't others act on my behalf after I am dead that which Scott agrees I would have the right to do when I was alive?
November 8th, 2009, 1:35 pm
Juice wrote:From my perspective a person who commits such an egregious offence against individual(s) or society so as to warrant a punishment of forfeiture of life in this material existence stands a greater and eventual chance for redemption directly under Gods Grace than he would have considered on this plane of existence.
Juice wrote:Since that reaction to, unarguably, all crimes is excepted even in crimes that do not follow through with death then it would be safe to say that the need to assuage anger and grief with death is not a motivating factor unless a person feels the need to take direct action upon himself as in revenge.
Juice wrote:Here in we see how statements made confirming the payment of debt and that debt to society as "paid debt to society" after serving a proportional prison term originate... An individual who commits an egregious act against an individual(s) or society does not owe rehabilitation to society and vice versa but a propotional debt to the aggrieved individual(s) or society.
Juice wrote:Can we trust a promise to rehabilitate from an individual who has decided to forgo reasonable exceptions of peaceful coexistence as a reasonable expectation of repayment for a proportionally accepted debt?
Juice wrote:In the same way that an individual realizes that he is responsible to repay or reconcile any debt, the individual commits a crime with the foreknowledge that he will have to "owe up" to repayment of that predetermined action when caught and prosecuted with the assurance that such repayment will be proportional to the crime and not cruel and unusual no matter the level of cruelty and unusualness of the crime in so far as its applicability to reconciliation for the debt.
November 10th, 2009, 4:34 pm
Scott wrote:Alun, I think the disagreement is from your use of the term deserve when I think in amoral terms.
Scott wrote:When I say I directly get less displeasure from the attacker being hurt than I directly get from the one he is attacking being hurt, perhaps you describe the presence of less sympathy for the attacker as me thinking he deserves it.
November 10th, 2009, 6:33 pm
Scott wrote:I do not see how finishing an offensively violent act would make him more valuable. Perhaps I misunderstood this question.
Scott wrote:I do not see how "upholding" this so-called "integral ideal or principle" of an eye-for-an-eye (or one-eye-for-two-eyes or two-eyes-for-one-eye) is, in itself, worth hurting someone.
Scott wrote:how much any one person values other people's lives compared to each other is not a compelling argument for public policy. Moralizing one's personal opinions by saying someone deserves something or saying they are less undeserving is not a compelling argument.
November 21st, 2009, 5:55 pm