Stanley 'Tookie' Williams

[Stu Bloom]

Sorry to continue off topic ... but I have to say it ...

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

... So why obsess over it? If it's the loss of American lives that concerns the nation, why not campaign aggressively against smoking, or improve automobile safety? At least then, the benefits will be tangible, and substantially more significant to the well being of the locals. ...

Now THAT may be the most intelligent thing I have ever read on this forum ...

[Alex Burman]

If loseing lives is the major issue, why not push for global gun ban. It would stop all the killing. If you think it would be a probem to get other countries to listen to you, you form a trade embargo along with other aligned/UN countries against a select country(ies). A potential peacful solution to world politics.

edit: I missed when it switched away from being about Mr. Williams

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Grayswandir-75

If loseing lives is the major issue, why not push for global gun ban. It would stop all the killing.

I don't think you've thought this one through.

Wetzel

[Beth Sweet]

Back on the topic for Mr. Williams for a moment, the one point about the death penalty that I surprisingly have not yet seen arise is how many people are put to death and then late found innocent of the crime which they were killed for. They all went down pleading innocence. Ignoring entirely my personal moral beliefs, this simple fact seems enough to me for the end of the system. Even if we are saying a life for a (some) life(ves), how can you justify that with so many people who have been killed now having evidence found that they were innocent?

[Personal belief time, not necessarily backed by fact as above statement was]

As (I believe it was) Bill said, the only real time that one really ought be not horrifically punished for killing another is in self defense. There have been numerous studies that tell that the defense of one's own life is the only natural instinct: survival. Anyone who truly believes in the death penalty must be willing to die themselves. If someone is given the death penalty, someone has to push the button to give them the injection. The button pusher therefore is a murderer himself and must now be killed. He knew about this ahead of time and had everything planned out and did it all in sound conscience. And so on and so on until all but 1 person who believes in the death penalty are killed. But they have a right to kill that person some may say. Who determines the right to kill? Who says "you may kill" "you may not"? Who has the right to say who will live or die?

Some of you are arguing that capitol punishment is a way to detur murderous crime. It isn't though. You're solving a murder with a murder. Most people who commit these murders probably are not the type that think like most of society anyways because most of society does not go around killing each other. So you can't say "well this will scare most people from commiting murder" because the people commiting these murders, in doing so, have rejected the view of most of society who wouldn't have done what the murderer did in the first place. (sorry, that was a really bad run on sentance)

FINAL STATEMENT FOR THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO READ THAT WHOLE THING: There are too many problems with the death penalty for it to seriously be used. Period.

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by Beth Sweet

[Personal belief time, not necessarily backed by fact as above statement was]

If someone is given the death penalty, someone has to push the button to give them the injection. The button pusher therefore is a murderer himself and must now be killed. He knew about this ahead of time and had everything planned out and did it all in sound conscience.

What is your definition of "murder"?

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice aforethought"

When the law allows the death penalty, the executioner is performing a legally-mandated killing and is therefore not a murderer. The majority of killings in this country are not murder. Many of them are accidents; some of them are manslaughter, a lesser crime than murder. And not all murders are intentional (example: an armed bank robber killing someone in the course of committing the robbery, and claiming it was unintentional, will still be held liable for first-degree murder unless the court is very liberal).

In 2004, there was a shoot-out at our motel during a regional competition. Fortunately, most of the team was at the stadium and was not exposed to the danger. This is what happened: a man was misbehaving in the motel lobby. The police came and tried to deal with him. He pulled a gun on them. A running gun battle ensued from the motel lobby, across the front courtyard, alongside some of our rooms, and into the rear parking lot, where the police finally killed him.

Now, the guy was probably on drugs or crazy or something, so it's too bad this happened, but what else could the police do? Let him go on shooting up the motel? Would you call the police "murderers" because they were defending themselves and the immediate community (motel staff and guests) from a clearly dangerous person? (I have pictures of the bullet holes in the wall 2 rooms down from the room where one of our team moms cowered during the shooting; a light fixture was shattered just outside the door of the room where our vice-principal was.)

Please be careful of how you use words. "Murder" is being expanded by some people to include any kind of killing, including killing of animals, or even plants. Overused, the word can lose its meaning and make rational discussion of this subject difficult or impossible.

Another point about the executioner: By instituting a governmental justice system, society takes vengeance for killings out of the hands of the victim's immediate friends and family, thereby curtailing the endless "eye for eye" cycle. Whatever flaws our justice system has, it is still much more impartial -- police, courts, and executioners--than an enraged parent or sibling who is thirsting for revenge.

[Beth Sweet]

Originally Posted by KarenH

What is your definition of "murder"?


When the law allows the death penalty, the executioner is performing a legally-mandated killing and is therefore not a murderer.

Another point about the executioner: By instituting a governmental justice system, society takes vengeance for killings out of the hands of the victim's immediate friends and family, thereby curtailing the endless "eye for eye" cycle. Whatever flaws our justice system has, it is still much more impartial -- police, courts, and executioners--than an enraged parent or sibling who is thirsting for revenge.

As I said, who gives the right to kill? Who has the right to kill? Murder by my definition is intentionally killing someone, knowing what you're doing. Who gives the right to kill?

[Karthik]

There's been some good discussion in this thread, it's refreshing. On the other hand, there have been some personal attacks in this thread. That's not cool. Let's try and keep things on track here, as opposed to singling people out and making sarcastic comments about them.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Grayswandir-75

If loseing lives is the major issue, why not push for global gun ban. It would stop all the killing. If you think it would be a probem to get other countries to listen to you, you form a trade embargo along with other aligned/UN countries against a select country(ies). A potential peacful solution to world politics.

edit: I missed when it switched away from being about Mr. Williams

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by Mike

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Good point, it's the same as drugs. Take cocaine, nowadays it is illeagal almost everywhere, but back when it was discovered it was a wonder pill. Cocaine was in almost everything (Coke actually had very little), and there weren't all these stories of people breaking into houses to get money to buy it, or innocents killed in drug wars. Cocaine labs didn't explode, or release dangerous chemicals. Even the Pope drank cocaine laced wine. Now it's illeagal and these things happen. If a drug/gun ban would work then it would be a excellent thing to enact, but this isn't and won't be the case