If I invite you to a party where another guest is a murderer and you get killed, am I responsible for your death?



Governments ought not lead by example. You do what you’re explicitly told not to do and they kill you. It’s that simple.

Lastly, although I think hanging is a fine form of execution, especially one for effect, there’s always the possibility that, at the last second, a mysterious man with no name will shoot of the rope and Saddam will land on a horse that rides off into the Iraqi desert.

You might want to edit that quote and direct it towards the person replying to me, it wasn't until I read the bottom of that quote that I realized you weren't speaking to me.

I've corrected it. Thanks for pointing out my oversight; I copied this into Word, since I didn't have an internet connection earler, and since copied it back into Massassi, so I guess the citation to JoS was lost in translation.

That's just a very bad analogy.

It would be more like throwing a party at someone's home after tying him up and locking him away in the closet, then inviting into his home all the gangsters in the hood, who end up plundering the man's house and raping his wife and daughters.

Sure, they would be the ones committing the crimes, but you would be responsible.

Like I said before, if Bush would have done his homework, he would have realized that he couldn't just remove this dictator from office without causing a civil war. It was the American invasion that was the catalyst for this situation to get out of hand.



No, you're not getting my point. It's about conveying the right message to people.

From a sociological point of view, allowing the death penalty is like teaching people that killing is a righteous form of punishment, that violence solves issues. If you want to convey a credible message, you shouldn't be practising the deed yourself. This is about educating society. Killing shouldn't be viewed as a way to punish people, but as an inhuman deed for which there is no excuse, and which shouldn't be practised by anybody, including the government.

For example, like I said before, if you're claiming to be 'defending freedom and democracy', who's going to take you seriously if you're systematically violating human rights and secretly practising torture?

Look, in my country the death penalty was abolished about 150 years ago. It is regarded as a brutal and archaic practise, just like in most other countries in the civilized world.

I really like how all of your arguments involve taking shots at America. Newsflash, we werent the only ones in on this trial.




Hey guess what, the death penalty is only allowed in certain states here. Since we have this thing called "choice" over here (omg conspiracy) certain states allow it while others dont.

I can see why you think that, but it's simply because I am a very politically orientated person, and it happens to be American politics that I find myself having problems with. That does not mean I hate America. I love it, and many of my friends live over there, so don't even go there. And we're not just discussing the trial, but more the death penalty in general at this point.



I know. Your point is? That we don't have choice?

Oh, by the way, to hell with the financial argument:



Source

Well it sure doesnt seem like you dislike our politics :p

Theres a difference between saying you dont like our administration and saying that America is uncivilized, dont you think?

And no, Im not saying you dont have a choice, Im just pointing out that the death penalty is something currently that is dealt with on the state level.

I never said that. I'm saying the death penalty is uncivilized. Notice the difference.

Saying that the death penalty is uncivilized and saying that the "Civilized countries believe the death penalty to be wrong" are definitely 2 different things.


I see your point, but your wording makes things confusing.

Fine, I'll add three words to what I said, just to fully convey to you the real extent of what I was saying:

Look, in my country the death penalty was abolished about 150 years ago. It is regarded as a brutal and archaic practise, just like in most other countries in the civilized world, except for America.

I'm not saying America isn't civilized. I'm saying it's a civilized country that still has the death penalty.

Happy now?

No need to mock.


I said i understood what you were saying, but previously it appeared that you were calling our nation uncivilized :p

Okay, but the way you paraphrased it ("Civilized countries believe the death penalty to be wrong") just didn't really cut it for me.

And I honestly wasn't mocking, sorry if it came off that way.

*plays the violin*

You're forgetting Japan, which is a more peaceful contry than yours, as well as you're forgetting Korea, Taiwan, Singapore. You're mistaking "civilized" for "western european."

Japan has capital punishment? Didn't know.

Yes, Japan does.

[quote=Japan File]Japan has a death penalty, but uses it sparingly, executing "only" two or three prisoners a year[/quote]

Conflicts with wikipedia



There is capital punishment in Taiwan also, but since 2003, they only used it to kill 3 people to this day. Before 2000, they killed lots. But times changed.

Singapore's capital punishment is rising though...a whole 22 deaths in 2001, compared to the 21 deaths the year before.

I don't understand Roach's argument, as these countries have been in turmoil for the 100 years, and is understandable to have a government supporting capital punishment in hard times. Peaceful countries, like France, Spain, The Netherlands, and well, the majority of Europe have all abolished the death penalty.

Yeah, I'm aware that I was probably leaving out a few others, I just added "except for America", so MBeggar would know what I meant.

...uh, I don't get how those countries have been in turmoil, but WWII somehow magically doesn't effect western Europe. I don't understand your argument.

That's considered "rising"? One extra death? That could just mean a mailman snapped the second year that didn't the first. How has it changed since then?

You answer my question by claiming the question itself is "bad." Interesting.



I'm not trying to "get" your point. I hope you don't think you're going to have any luck with pushing it on me. I respect that you may have an opinion and perspective different from mine. That does not imply that I have any responsibility to understand it.



Violence does solve issues. Party A holds a belief. Party B disagrees with Party A's belief. Party A continues to hold the belief in the face of protest. Party B is removed from the equation. Party A holds a belief without protest. I see no residual problem.



This holds between you and I, common citizenry. But the State is on an entirely different level. For instance, imagine we are citizens of the same commonwealth: I have no right to tax you, but the State does. I have no right to impound your property, but the State does. I have no right to kill you, but the State does.



Death is natural. It comes to all of us sooner or later. How do we eat? By killing. Even if you posit that we ought to be "civilized" and not kill one another, a murderer has violated that contract and is not civilized himself. Our forgiveness is his advantage, and something he more likely than not relishes in as his victory over the system, he beat the rap, not the mercy of some idea like "freedom."



Americans do not enjoy total freedom. I cannot kill, I cannot slander, and I cannot steal without facing the wrath of the State. I may want to do all of these, but I am not free. A democratically organized state must not implicitly respect human rights qua democratically organized. If the will of the voting populace supports either in action or passivity the violation of these so-called "human rights" or the conduct of torture, then the State as a whole ought to as well. Furthermore, human rights for members of the democracy does not imply any claims to human rights for non-members. If you're not one of us, there is no obligation for us to respect your "rights" or any other entitlement. The only worth in doing so would be to promote respect in other parties for our "rights." Fortunately, America is powerful enough, or believes itself to be powerful enough, to not need to pay attention to this when it doesn't want to.

Any scheme involving a noble code of "civilization" is pathetically deluded. "Civilization" justifies the status quo in a candy-coated package and blinds the majority to what would otherwise be an unsavory and bleak reality. Your posts are evidence.

Very well. Reading your previous reply it just seemed to me that you didn't understand what I was saying, and so I tried to explain it with other words. I'm sorry if I was mistaken about that.



Yes, but the question is: is it the lesson you want to teach to your children?




I'm not talking about forgiveness or mercy. I'm talking about more humane ways of punishment.



Well see, that is not exactly the case. What you're describing here is a dictatorship of the majority, not a democracy. A true democracy can only exist by the grace of freedom of speech and human rights for all. Without these things it simply wouldn't be a democracy.

We recently had a similar discussion in the media over here. One of our ministers stated that if a majority of the population wanted to adopt the Sharia (Islamic law), then we would be forced to, since we're a democracy. He was gravely mistaken. The Sharia in itself is in serious conflict with the very foundations of democracy, such as the equality of all its citizens. Democracy itself (and the constitution) needs to be protected from politics that will harm its functioning. Otherwise we would be forced to abolish democracy if a majority was in favour of a dictatorship.



Wrong again. You're forgetting that the USA is bound by a number of international treaties and conventions regarding human rights and the treatment of POWs. The fact that the US government is making their own rules for the treatment of 'enemy combatants', is just an attempt to weasel their way around these obligations.

Man, I needed a good laugh. I mean, what history book were you using? "The complete whitewash guide to Western Europe?"

The world wars? The struggle against communist supporters? Also, I don't think colonizing foreign areas and subjecting indigenous people to your rule is peaceful nor civilized. The list could go on as well. Please, define what you mean by 'peace'.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]Man, I needed a good laugh. I mean, what history book were you using? "The complete whitewash guide to Western Europe?"

The world wars? The struggle against communist supporters? Also, I don't think colonizing foreign areas and subjecting indigenous people to your rule is peaceful nor civilized. The list could go on as well. Please, define what you mean by 'peace'.[/QUOTE]



Source for the abolishment of Capital Punishment in Western Europe

Also, keep up with the times. What I posted earlier which you were blabbering your mouth about is based on MODERN times, not HISTORICAL.

Find out what both of those terms mean before you talk to me about history.

EDIT: In fact, scratch that, don't talk to me at all.

You said last hundred years. In the last hundred years Europe has been involved in colonization of the middle and far east, both world wars and the cold war, not to mention the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the struggle of reforming everything to the east of Germany. How has Europe been more at peace than Japan, Korea, Taiwan, or Singapore, all of whom have pretty much sat still since the cease fire of the Korean War.

I may have worded my original statement wrong.



I mean the past 100 years the countries of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore have had internal turmoil. Given any country would have some, these had have significant troubles with both the countries themselves and the areas around them. When you have a government on unrest, it typically would lean to more...radical solutions for minor politics such as how to deal with criminals. Western Europe hasn't had much trouble except for major catalyst of the world war. As the past hundred years progressed, things became more smooth, and overall ended up abolishing the death penalty- many of which did so around the 1970's-1980's.

Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China, etc. have been pretty much on edge ever since the World Wars--even before them. Just recently Japan voiced its concerns about North Korea's missles, South Korea has been on edge with North Korea, North Korea has been on edge from the United States and China's influence, and its government is weaker compared to western countries. We must also look at how eastern countries typically are dictatorships, rather than the majority of constitutional monarchies and democracies Western Europe has.

I wouldn't dare bring China into this. And I would still say Germany has had plenty of internal turmoil, and yet they still abolished the death penalty.

Oh, and:
Japan = Constitutional Monarchy
S. Korea = Republic
Singapore = Republic
Taiwan = Democracy

Recently?

I'm ignorant on the affairs in Germany as of now, so I wouldn't know.

Also, Germany is part of the Council of Europe, which to be a part of requires you to abolish capital punishment.

EDIT REPLY: Okay, maybe I worded that wrong too...I meant China and Korea. But like you said, we'll leave china out.

It's a punishment people, you gotta have em for a society to work. Big infractions get big punishments. People need to be scared of hurting people. Honestly, what's the big deal?

The big deal is...they don't scare people. If someone really wanted to murder someone, they'll do it however they could.

You said 100 years man. Read what you said yourself. Also, recent is a very shaky term of reference. Horrible catastrophies still resonate with a culture many years down the line.

For example, you used Spain. They were under Franco until 1975. That isn't recent, but it can be considered in "modern times".

The way you worded your response was flawed, as were your examples. There is no "may" about it. Real funny of you to post the definition when you yourself seemed to not understand what "peace" is.

Your argument was that it's understandable to have capital punishment in hard times, then gave examples of "peaceful" nations that have abolished the death penalty. The problem however is that these countries have not been at peace?

How about the French riots, about what, a year or so ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_riots

Or the train attacks in Spain, in retailiation for their help with the war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings

These people are not exactly in easy times, so your examples at least don't work. And the way you intitally worded it was really funky, 100 years and all.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]You said 100 years man. Read what you said yourself. Also, recent is a very shaky term of reference. Horrible catastrophies still resonate with a culture many years down the line.[/quote]

I agree with this.



Good point, however like I said, capital punishment was abolished in Spain in 1975, I believe.



I used the formal definition of peace to encourage my argument and be a credible source.



They abolished the death penalty in the 1970's-1980s, long before these events happened.

This is all reasonable enough, until we get to this part:



First of all, there were two World Wars in the past hundred years. In addition, there was the threat of nuclear holocaust lingering over the world for several decades after the second. Britain was enganged in the Falkland Islands War. France had to pull out of Vietnam due to tremendous losses. Also, there was the whole problem of the French army insurrection in Algeria. Additionally, Europe had to deal with the threat of terrorism within its borders, such as in the Munich Olympic Games shootings. There was the whole "Iron Curtain" issue that went right through Europe and polarized two sides against one another. And this is just from my vague understanding of contemporary European political history as a foreigner and an American, let alone what citizens of those nations will doubtless know.



Granted.



This is nonsense. If these nations have been on edge since the world wars and before them, why even use the world wars as a milestone? Of course the nations were on edge before the world wars, that was what helped lead to their involvement in both. Japan wasn't China's best friend thanks to a campaign of invasion and bombing. China was engulfed in civil war and then had to come to terms with its new identity as a Communist nation in the Cultural Revolution. Japan had to deal with getting nuked. And then having the US rewrite its constitution and occupy for a while. Korea had been conquered by Japan and after freedom, was partitioned by the US and the Soviet Union. Taiwan has had China looming over it ever since the Second World War.

So yes, all these nations have had their fair share of "turmoil." I would not contest that this is in any way substantially different from the turmoil faced by Europe in a similar timeframe. South Korea has flourished into a wealthy nation and regional economic powerhouse. Japanese business has become the envy of the Western world, and its people have achieved a reputation for innovation and efficiency. Not to mention China, who has undergone a complete image improvement and is experiencing an era of unprecendented development and prosperity.


I fail to see how this is any different than the "Western world" voicing concern over an Iranian plutonium enrichment scheme.



This has been going on for the past 50 years. The actual fear of invasion fluctuates from year to year, but is never anything too serious. Many Koreans don't even want US border deployments in the country anymore. Furthermore, South Korea has been pursuing a "sunshine policy" with the North to foster more peaceful relations. Really, DPR NK's biggest beef with the South is that they have too much American influence.



uhhh... no ****? DPR NK was not one of the countries you listed in your original statement, and if you want to start talking about the death penalty or any sorts of human rights issues there, that's for an entirely different conversation.



Japan is a constitutional empire and has a parliament not unlike that of European constitutional monarchies. That's because the West rewrote their constitution. South Korea is a democratic nation with an elected president and legislature. Taiwan is also a democracy. China is nominally a Communist state, and while this is not a democracy, I would hardly call the Chinese political structure a dictatorship instead.

Don't write off Asia. kthx.

I know you won't believe this, but I typo'ed off an "s" after war.



I agree with everything you said here. My point is not this analytical though. Summed up, it's my personal opinion that countries with little to no troubles usually tend to abolish capital punishment. Europe has been on the calm downhill from World War II. The Eastern countries really haven't had this in a very long time.

I could be wrong. The primary reason, as I found out when I originally made my first statement about this, for the abolishment of capital punishment, is that it is a moratorium for European countries to be on the European council. That could be the sole reason.

That is biased as hell.


Newsflash;

You can't post one source of statistics collected by one agency. That doesn't prove anything.


Lifers file appeals and waste court money too, and on top of that we have to feed them, clothe them, and care for them for the rest of their lives. If the appeal system was sped up it wouldn't be a financial problem to execute someone because they're a violent savage.

But hey, pedofiles, murderers, other assorted ****heads, and violent sociopaths have a right to life. Especially when they have so little regard for everyone elses!

Sorry if I insulted your intelligence. I didn't outright mean to belittle you - I'm just outraged at your assertion that "Europe has been on the calm downhill from World War II" while "The Eastern countries really haven't had this in a very long time." You're entitled to your opinions, even incorrect opinions. I'm just concerned about this kind of view on history.

For instance, Japan has been more at peace than many European nations. In fact, they are constitutionally a pacifist nation and has no army. Korea and Taiwan live under the threat of Communist invasion. But they've been under this threat for decades and nothing major has happened. Plenty of European nations were already under Communist annexation for decades, and plenty more threatened by it. To say that the West has been at peace while the East is troubled is a very deluded view of the current state of affairs and world history.