Capital Punishment

[truthseeker]

Human rights is not a constitutional issue - only American rights.

This issue will forever be a fight of human rights and conservative morals. One who completely believes in the system of laws set by a political culture couldn't fully understand the issue of human rights. Tookie was a rehabilitated man - I'm sure he did kill some people but he has repented those crimes with the time in jail and his redemptive personality. If you have not been a inner city youth, one who works with inner city youth, or has not been a victim of war, then you can never understand the prejudices endured by one who is outside of the mainstream political ideology.
They could've let that man live just as easily as they put him to death. When you weigh whether you let a man live or die, you wonder if you let him live, how much more harm can he do? If you let him die, he can do no more harm, ever. Tookie was writing children's books with a positive message for inner city youth. One who is not or has never been or can't relate to inner city youth sees the whole thing as detrimental and can not discern what is or is not constructive. In that case, the man would be better off dead - which the state had the power to do. Only the state can decide whether someone is better off dead. Not the victim - whether the victim is living or dead there is no power for the citizen because to live in this society you give up the right to protect yourself and have given the state the right to decide whether you are innocent or guilty of proper reasoning.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


Quahom, by the by, pacifism did win a war. the War of Indian Independence.

metta,

~v

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,


Quahom, by the by, pacifism did win a war. the War of Indian Independence.

metta,

~v

When World War II broke out, the Congress party and Gandhi demanded a declaration of war aims and their application to India. As a reaction to the unsatisfactory response from the British, the party decided not to support Britain in the war unless the country were granted complete and immediate independence. The British refused, offering compromises that were rejected. When Japan entered the war, Gandhi still refused to agree to Indian participation. He was interned in 1942 but was released two years later because of failing health.

By 1944 the Indian struggle for independence was in its final stages, the British government having agreed to independence on condition that the two contending nationalist groups, the Muslim League and the Congress party, should resolve their differences. Gandhi stood steadfastly against the partition of India but ultimately had to agree, in the hope that internal peace would be achieved after the Muslim demand for separation had been satisfied. India and Pakistan became separate states when the British granted India its independence in 1947. During the riots that followed the partition of India, Gandhi pleaded with Hindus and Muslims to live together peacefully. Riots engulfed Calcutta, one of the largest cities in India, and the Mahatma fasted until disturbances ceased. On January 13, 1948, he undertook another successful fast in New Delhi to bring about peace, but on January 30, 12 days after the termination of that fast, as he was on his way to his evening prayer meeting, he was assassinated by a fanatical Hindi.

India and Pakistan have been at eachother's throats ever since.

I don't think pacifism won India independence. More like comprimise, and blood shed, combined with a raging World War set the stage for a smaller version of India, being independent. Also, the fighting between the two former parts of one India is still going on.

Pacifism did not change the tide, imo, economics did. Britian could not maintain its empire economically. Almost 60 years later India is still a fractured land. Religious groups violently oppose each other, and stability is questionable. India was split into two countries (who still fight over a third part of the land, and threaten eachother with nuclear retaliation methods). That is MAD (mutually assured destruction) tactics. Clearly not pacifistic.

I'm not dismissing Ghandi's infleuence in setting India free. Not at all. I'm pointing out that pacifism didn't do the trick.

There were pacifists in the colonial Americas as well, but it did not win the war for independence. They ended up either going to Canada, back to England, or accepting the new rule of the law of the land.

my thoughts Vaj.

v/r

Q

[truthseeker]

Funny how these people go and colonize in different places and always seeming to turn the indigenous people against eachother, all at the same time calling it "freeing the people" or some kind of "improvement". These people can never go and enjoy the land without turning everything upside down.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

Funny how these people go and colonize in different places and always seeming to turn the indigenous people against eachother, all at the same time calling it "freeing the people" or some kind of "improvement". These people can never go and enjoy the land without turning everything upside down.

Perhaps due to the concept of conquest. The idea is not to enjoy anything, but to subjugate. Colonizing is a misnomer. Can't colonize a land full of people unless the intention is to get rid of those that currently exist and replace with one's own, or, populate a land with no people, with one's own.

Conquest is to subjugate others to one's own way of thinking. Whether it be for self defense or for other than honorable reasons. Is it right or wrong? Depends.

The United States, considers "conquest" as a self defense action. It did not until after 9/11/2001. Now it does. It did not prior to 12/7/1941, then it did. Look hard at Japan and Germany. America was definitely a nation of conquest pertaining to these to lands and people. Didn't quit until America felt the results were satifactory (happened to benefit the two nations as well). The middle east is no different. You bring it to our shores, we take it back to your home land, and we don't stop until you get it. That is American mentality. Break you down, then build you back up, and let go (for the most part). That is justice, met with mercy.

If those in the middle east were smart, they'd let us do our thing, and build them back up. Then they'd take over and self govern as they see fit. But some people refuse to be smart. We on the other hand refuse to be terrorized.

That is the truth, basic and simple. History is quite prevelent in presenting this set of facts. That is also capital punishment on a large scale. Kill us, we kill back.

Unfortunately the ratio of deaths is very lopsided. For every coalition soldier killed, 1000 middle eastern people have been killed (and that does not include the innocent civilians)...such is war. Make no mistake, this is war. This is survival, America's survival.

We used to think our shores (the oceans), would protect us, and we could remain rather isolated...now we know better. The sleeping giant is once again awake, and ticked off...

Attacking the US was a "capital crime"...for which we will punish.

I'm sure some of you will disagree (as is your right). But majority rules, at least here it does.

Funny thing about America though. Back off, and it tends to back off as well...

Continue pushing...and we push right back, and then some...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[wil]

Attacking the US was a "capital crime"...for which we will punish.

I'm sure some of you will disagree (as is your right). But majority rules, at least here it does.

a little off topic but you started it.

Which majority decided to go to Iraq?

What did Iraq have to do with the attack?

How many of the attackers were Saudi, and what punishment have we meted?

Why have we killed more Iraqi's in 3 years than their viscious dictator did in 30?

As I indicated before, me thinks it is vengence, not punishment, me thinks you have supported my views.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Quahom,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I don't think pacifism won India independence.

yet, Gandhi clearly advocated pacifist tactics to win their independence... especially with regards to textile goods and, most importantly, salt.

More like comprimise, and blood shed, combined with a raging World War set the stage for a smaller version of India, being independent. Also, the fighting between the two former parts of one India is still going on.

many Indians still lament the actions of Kamal Mustaffaa and his desire for a seperate Muslim homeland for Muslim Indians.

in fact, there were three partitions, East and West Pakistan and India. East Pakistan is now Bangladesh.

Pacifism did not change the tide, imo, economics did. Britian could not maintain its empire economically. Almost 60 years later India is still a fractured land.

i beg to differ.

India is the largest democracy on earth.

I'm not dismissing Ghandi's infleuence in setting India free. Not at all. I'm pointing out that pacifism didn't do the trick.

in your view, of course.

clearly, i would disagree with this view as it seems that a proper cognition of the teaching of Ahisma would make clear.

nevertheless, the forms of protest were economic in design and pacifist in action. to wit, the aforementioned salt and the homespun cloth. that is why, by the by, that Gandhi always appeared in homespun.

There were pacifists in the colonial Americas as well, but it did not win the war for independence. They ended up either going to Canada, back to England, or accepting the new rule of the law of the land.

my thoughts Vaj.

v/r

Q

perhaps if the Americans had a Mahatma, they too, could have achieved independence through pacifist means?

violence does not achieve lasting peace, even in the Americas. it was not long until the British were back and even managed to burn the White House down during the War of 1812.

it takes a rare sort of courage to be able to resist violence with peace and tolerance.

i know that i could not do so.

metta,

~v

[truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Conquest is to subjugate others to one's own way of thinking. Whether it be for self defense or for other than honorable reasons. Is it right or wrong? Depends.

...Look hard at Japan and Germany. America was definitely a nation of conquest pertaining to these to lands and people. Didn't quit until America felt the results were satifactory (happened to benefit the two nations as well).
The middle east is no different. You bring it to our shores, we take it back to your home land, and we don't stop until you get it. That is American mentality. Break you down, then build you back up, and let go (for the most part). That is justice, met with mercy.

If those in the middle east were smart, they'd let us do our thing, and build them back up. Then they'd take over and self govern as they see fit. But some people refuse to be smart. We on the other hand refuse to be terrorized.

...Make no mistake, this is war. This is survival, America's survival.

We used to think our shores (the oceans), would protect us, and we could remain rather isolated...now we know better. The sleeping giant is once again awake, and ticked off...

Attacking the US was a "capital crime"...for which we will punish.

I'm sure some of you will disagree (as is your right). But majority rules, at least here it does.

Funny thing about America though. Back off, and it tends to back off as well...

Continue pushing...and we push right back, and then some...

Maybe you are even spoken like a True Christian - you are definately spoken like a true American soldier.

[Quahom1]

a little off topic but you started it.

Which majority decided to go to Iraq?

11 October 2003
"In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. "

By representation, the majority of America voted the attack on Iraq.

What did Iraq have to do with the attack?

What did Germany have to do with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? I don't normally answer a question with a question, however my intent is to point out the obvious hidden in plane sight. Though it was not known for certain that Japan and Germany were allied, it was suspected. Only later did we find the proof needed to link the two, as allies.

Al-Queda attacked, and Saddam Hussein promised the Americans the mother of all battles.

Japan attacked and Germany declared war on the US.

Like WWII, none of us know the depth of knowledge the US had prior to the war. We do know some was faulty, and some was true, and some was speculation (that later on...year later), proved true.

How many of the attackers were Saudi, and what punishment have we meted?

15 of the 19 were Saudis. However they did not claim to be fighting for Saudi Arabia. There battle cry was for al-Queda. What punishment is being metted against al-Queda?...look around the globe. We fight an enemy with no borders, and a shadowy form of government.

Why have we killed more Iraqi's in 3 years than their viscious dictator did in 30 years?

I'm not sure you have your numbers correct. In thirty years Hussein has overseen the death of over 3,000,000 people. 1,500,000 were his own people, including over 5,000 civilians in a single day (as a test of chemical weapons, and a means to eradicate Kurds from his land).

In three years 35,000 have been killed in Iraq, including 6,000 civilians 2,300 US military.

As I indicated before, me thinks it is vengence, not punishment, me thinks you have supported my views.

One man's vengence is another man's justice. Depends on the point of view.

Hitler thought he should rule Europe. Hussein thought he should rule the Middle East. Japan thought they would have their empire never have the sun set on it. Al-Queda thinks the whole world should come under their rule. And that the world should adhere to their religious and theosofical beliefs.

Every one above had a vision of the perfect human race, pure, unquestioning, un tainted. To these people above, the rest of us are either impure, unclean, infidel, or gygene. If you and I are not one of groups as noted above, we were/are less than human, unworthy of even life.

All above had visions of re-claiming lost glory of years gone past.

So as I stated before, it isn't vengence, or punishment really. It is a matter of survival.

And Vaj, you make a valid point about pacfism. However I submit that it only works with a "conquestor" with some kind of conscience. I doubt it would have worked with those noted above.

v/r

Q

[Silverbackman]

Interesting thread, its time I add my input.

On the capital punishment issue, I am quite divided on the issue. I used to be totally for it but now I'm thinking: What if a person kills more than 1 person? What if they kill 2, 3, 4, or even 5 people? How would eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth help then? Perhaps an even worse punishment should exist above the death penalty: The torture chamber. But then if we start something like this, human rights groups would go bonkers declaring it cruel an unusual punishment. They will also argue the man was most likely insane and that it isn't his fault.

Life in prison is another issue, is it really so much better than the death penalty? Well it depends how you look at it. Most prison systems today are like a country club in many ways they even get health benefits many good people cannot get . What's worse is that life in prison is a waste. I mean think about. The people don’t want to pour in their money for a criminal with no hope. Should the tax payer pay for such people (at least murders like pre-meditated murder)? Furthermore capital punishment has shown to be more effective than the other form in preventing crime. If we look at countries like Singapore we will note the crime rate is extremely low. Of course our countries don't have to be as strict as Singapore but the death penalty seems to prevent people from doing crime.

Of course a very strong argument against the death penalty would be that the government should not be at the "level" of the murderers by murdering themselves. Then again there is a strong counter-argument saying some people just deserve it.

Is there a centrist solution for this? I haven’t thought of one yet, but perhaps I should start thinking of one .

As for the aggressive defense vs pacifism debate, that one will never be solved. Both are valid and have good points to both of them. Just look at to former British colonies: USA and India. The US used aggressive self defensive against the British and it worked out perfectly for them. India used pacifism and equally powerful tool and defeated the British. Both are valid and there is no right or wrong question for that .

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I'm not sure you have your numbers correct. In thirty years Hussein has overseen the death of over 3,000,000 people. 1,500,000 were his own people, including over 5,000 civilians in a single day (as a test of chemical weapons, and a means to eradicate Kurds from his land).

In three years 35,000 have been killed in Iraq, including 6,000 civilians 2,300 US military.

Can you cite a source for where you got these numbers. I don't doubt the numbers being correct but I just want to see a site that says these exact number .

[Curios Mike]

I do not believe all should be put to death it depends on the murder, and the murderer. If say one guy kills another mans family then the other man tracks him down and kills him. I dont think he should be killed, becuase he doesnt present himself a danger to humanity, but only to the man who killed his. But he should do some time or something. But if the other killer managed to kill the man of the house, yes Who's to say he want do it again.

What about the victim or victoms who cannot answer this question? What about the future victoms that will be killed if society does not stop the killer? If A bear comes out of the woods and eats a woman, wouldnt we kill it. Why? Becuase its fear of man is gone. They become a danger not just to the 1 they killed but to others who may stumble upon their path.

Do I like the fact people are exectuted, why would I. But why did they kill? Did i like the fact they killed some one, or a group of someones, of course not, and that is why I am for capital punishment.

I'm not sure I totaly believe ( but yeh kinda sorta) in what one said, but if we are all apart of one collective, then as our own body fights impurities in the body so should society do the same. As far as those that pose a threat to others who would not cuase anyoneelse any harm.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Curios Mike

I do not believe all should be put to death it depends on the murder, and the murderer. If say one guy kills another mans family then the other man tracks him down and kills him. I dont think he should be killed, becuase he doesnt present himself a danger to humanity, but only to the man who killed his. But he should do some time or something. But if the other killer managed to kill the man of the house, yes Who's to say he want do it again.

What about the victim or victoms who cannot answer this question? What about the future victoms that will be killed if society does not stop the killer? If A bear comes out of the woods and eats a woman, wouldnt we kill it. Why? Becuase its fear of man is gone. They become a danger not just to the 1 they killed but to others who may stumble upon their path.

Do I like the fact people are exectuted, why would I. But why did they kill? Did i like the fact they killed some one, or a group of someones, of course not, and that is why I am for capital punishment.

I'm not sure I totaly believe ( but yeh kinda sorta) in what one said, but if we are all apart of one collective, then as our own body fights impurities in the body so should society do the same. As far as those that pose a threat to others who would not cuase anyoneelse any harm.

Capital punishment is normally reserved for Murder in the first degree, or pre-meditated murder. Second degree and third degree or (a crime of passion or negligent homicide) do not normally warrant the death penalty. This is because one is due to temporary insanity, and the other is untintentional.

There are exceptions to the rule:

War, on the other hand is "sanctioned" homicide, wherein both governemts agree to allow its citizen soldiers to kill the enemy. However, even in war, the deliberate killing of innocent and/or unarmed people is murder, and subjects the killer to capital punishment.

It is also reserved in the military for desertion in the face of the enemy, as well as espianage, and sabatage, for good reason...the perpetrator is aiding and abetting the enemy which kills people. An officer on the battlefield is issued a pistol, not for self defense, but to stop a soldier who breaks from the battle line and runs...so serious is this offense that the soldier is tried convicted and executed by one man/woman, within a matter of seconds. Cowardice before the enemy can not be tolerated, as it devistates the morale of the troops, and brings disgrace to the nation the soldier is representing.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[wil]

While I understand the difference stated between war 'santioned homicide' or genocide even...and capitol punishment, both are acts of vengence and satisfying the ego's need for power over others....imho

in regards to Iraq

11 October 2003
"In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. "

I agree, however we are a country which normally blantanly ignore UN resolutions and should similar ones be put on us would go to war over it at the drop of a hat. The WMD discussion is a very sore spot in this administrations intelligence abilities and has been admitted to have been grossly exagerated.

Al-Queda attacked, and Saddam Hussein promised the Americans the mother of all battles. Japan attacked and Germany declared war on the US. Like WWII, none of us know the depth of knowledge the US had prior to the war. We do know some was faulty, and some was true, and some was speculation (that later on...year later), proved true.

The complete opposite has happened here...the fictitious ties of Iraq to Al Queda have disappeared the loose threads exist but are nothing to hold onto. However there are more Al Queda cells and operatives in Iraq now then there were before the war as that is where we are....so moving the focus from the US to the middle east has been a highly successful operation.

Quote:

How many of the attackers were Saudi, and what punishment have we meted?

15 of the 19 were Saudis. However they did not claim to be fighting for Saudi Arabia. There battle cry was for al-Queda. What punishment is being metted against al-Queda?...look around the globe. We fight an enemy with no borders, and a shadowy form of government.

I'm not sure you have your numbers correct. In thirty years Hussein has overseen the death of over 3,000,000 people. 1,500,000 were his own people, including over 5,000 civilians in a single day (as a test of chemical weapons, and a means to eradicate Kurds from his land).

In three years 35,000 have been killed in Iraq, including 6,000 civilians 2,300 US military.

Surely you can't count the Iranians we encouraged and funded Sadam to fight for years after our puppet the Shaw lost power? I'd also like to see the foundation for your figures. My understanding is our admitted civilian count is higher... During Gulf 1 we encouraged and promised backing for an uprising from the south...we promised weapons and our helicopters to back the rebelion against Sadam..then as they attacked and moved north we pulled out and left them to be slaughtered....those deaths are on our hands...(no need to discuss our ambassador telling Iraq before that war that we would have no issues with their border disputes or taking back Quwait) In addition our Pentagon has confirmed that the gas that took out the Kurds was Iranian...a gas that Sadam never had access to, and can no longer be blamed for (or we would use it in his trial!)

[Rouge47]

My personal opinion on Capital Punishment:

Let your God or Leader sort out the black and white, not a bunch of crazy politics. They screw everything up and even kill the innocent. Why? Blaim the US Capitalist Society...or Canada...which ever works best for you.

PJ