Freethought & Rationalism Archive

grumpytheBright · 10-01-2007, 08:34 AM

One or two of the posts on this thread point out that innocent people get executed from time to time. Activities such as The Innocence Project suggest that this happens far more often than anyone has suspected up to now.

Irreversible (can you say "Irony"?) simply ignores this in his arguements. I don't pretend to know what motivates passionate death penalty supporters, but it clearly isn't love of JUSTICE.

A Humanist is horrified at the prospect of innocent people being killed, especially killed by the State.

Irreversible and his fellows don't seem to care about this. They won't even address the issue.

The answer is obviously, "NO. If you support the death penalty you are not a Humanist."

grumpytheBright

Headache · 10-01-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache

[
Death penalty is ALWAYS wrong, just as locking people up for life is ALWAYS wrong. Both are totally inhumane.

I know people will come back with all kinds of emotional crap to try to justify their positions on death penalty and life sentences, but every argument you will use, is emotionally based and not reality based.

Yeah, that terrible emotional crap. That crying and sobbing when a loved one has been killed by some piece of garbage. Inhumane? You have no idea. As far as I'm concerned an individual loses their rights to freedom when they intentionally finish the life of another human being.....

So what?
When has laws and punishment been based upon emotions?

Everyone knows the relatives are upset and angry and just exactly because they are, they should have no say in punishment because their judgment is clouded by personal grief and emotions.

That is exactly why civilized societies have preset laws and sentence guidelines.

JPD · 10-02-2007, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Yeah, that terrible emotional crap. That crying and sobbing when a loved one has been killed by some piece of garbage. Inhumane? You have no idea. As far as I'm concerned an individual loses their rights to freedom when they intentionally finish the life of another human being.....

So what?
When has laws and punishment been based upon emotions?

Everyone knows the relatives are upset and angry and just exactly because they are, they should have no say in punishment because their judgment is clouded by personal grief and emotions.

That is exactly why civilized societies have preset laws and sentence guidelines.

Then what, precisely, are they based on?

fanucon · 10-03-2007, 05:08 AM

Compassion is no substitute for justice.

grumpytheBright · 10-03-2007, 10:57 AM

Hah. The bloodthirsties have proven my point. Several responses, NOT ONE of which addresses the issue of execution of the innocent. They just don't care how many innocents are executed, as long as they get their blood.

Justice can be got without killing, and when that is done, errors are fixable.

grumpytheBright

MollyMac · 10-03-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael1111

you are not a humanist if you support capital punishment.

a humanist is about understanding life and not destroying it. a humanist seeks to understand all aspects that go into making humanity what it is and then works to improve on our being. there is no understanding in the death penalty and the action is equal to all killing. it says that killing people is sometimes necessary, but it is the desire to see the human life expressed to its full potential that makes the humanist. without understanding what makes us kill, we will just keep on killing, no matter what the reason.

merriam-webster itself says:

"stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason"

and the death penalty ain't that.

michael

I can't agree with this. Humanism is a positive and naturalist worldview that is underpinned by a commitment to rational enquiry and the scientific method. There is no list of moral bulletpoints that humanists must agree with - what humanists must be prepared to do (amongst other things) is make decisions according to standards of reason and humanity. If the OP is willing and able to do this, he is entitled to consider himself a humanist, even if other humanists think he is wrong. If he or anyone else would like to explore this question with other humanists, I know a good forum you could visit. (See my home page.)

JPD · 10-04-2007, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grumpytheBright

Hah. The bloodthirsties have proven my point. Several responses, NOT ONE of which addresses the issue of execution of the innocent. They just don't care how many innocents are executed, as long as they get their blood.

Justice can be got without killing, and when that is done, errors are fixable.

grumpytheBright

"Justice" can be got without killing, and when that is done, errors are "fixable".

So how many innocents are likely to be killed going forward as forensic techniques improve?

How is it in any way right that an individual convicted of raping and killing a child, say, on the basis of extremely strong evidence, is allowed to continue to exist? He has snuffed out the life of another individual. On what level is it acceptable that he should be allowed to continue his existence? What sort of definition of justice is that?

coloradoatheist · 10-04-2007, 04:30 AM

Also I've read, but would like to confirm either way that if you are on death row you have a better chance of getting your sentenced overturned than if you are just put in life without parole. So if you were innocent and found guilty, you may want to get the death penalty so you will have a chance to plead your case.

Mike

grumpytheBright · 10-04-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

So how many innocents are likely to be killed going forward as forensic techniques improve?

So how many are acceptible?

Quote:

How is it in any way right that an individual convicted of raping and killing a child, say, on the basis of extremely strong evidence, is allowed to continue to exist? He has snuffed out the life of another individual. On what level is it acceptable that he should be allowed to continue his existence? What sort of definition of justice is that?

:banghead: More of the same. Try to address the fact that innocent people get imprisoned or executed, and they go right back to how horrible the bad guys are. How about addressing the problem of the innocent? You all have said all that can be said about how sweet it is to kill bad people. What about how wrong it is to kill good people?

grumpytheBright

grumpytheBright · 10-04-2007, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coloradoatheist

Also I've read, but would like to confirm either way that if you are on death row you have a better chance of getting your sentenced overturned than if you are just put in life without parole. So if you were innocent and found guilty, you may want to get the death penalty so you will have a chance to plead your case.

Mike

Huhh?

g

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-01-2007, 08:34 AM	#31
grumpytheBright Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 61	One or two of the posts on this thread point out that innocent people get executed from time to time. Activities such as The Innocence Project suggest that this happens far more often than anyone has suspected up to now. Irreversible (can you say "Irony"?) simply ignores this in his arguements. I don't pretend to know what motivates passionate death penalty supporters, but it clearly isn't love of JUSTICE. A Humanist is horrified at the prospect of innocent people being killed, especially killed by the State. Irreversible and his fellows don't seem to care about this. They won't even address the issue. The answer is obviously, "NO. If you support the death penalty you are not a Humanist." grumpytheBright

10-03-2007, 05:08 AM	#34
fanucon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Midwest Minnesota Posts: 721	Compassion is no substitute for justice.

10-03-2007, 10:57 AM	#35
grumpytheBright Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 61	Hah. The bloodthirsties have proven my point. Several responses, NOT ONE of which addresses the issue of execution of the innocent. They just don't care how many innocents are executed, as long as they get their blood. Justice can be got without killing, and when that is done, errors are fixable. grumpytheBright

10-04-2007, 04:30 AM	#38
coloradoatheist Contributor Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: denver Posts: 11,319	Also I've read, but would like to confirm either way that if you are on death row you have a better chance of getting your sentenced overturned than if you are just put in life without parole. So if you were innocent and found guilty, you may want to get the death penalty so you will have a chance to plead your case. Mike

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.