Originally Posted By cmpaley ^^^ There's a case where an innocent man was executed in Texas. The name is Ruben Cantu. But he doesn't count because he was a Messican and everyone knows that Messicans don't matter. Seriously, if ALL attempts at isolating a dangerous criminal from society and keeping that crminal from being a danger to others fail, then and ONLY then would execution be a viable moral option. The question becomes, 2oony, was Clarence Ray Allen completely separated from society in solitary confinement with minimum human contact when he orchastrated the murders of others? If so, then and ONLY then would it be moral to execute him.
Originally Posted By barboy I'll bet 10,000 to 1 odds that if that were a 19 year old white pretty girl named Ashley McDaniels instead of Ruben Cantu the death penalty would be abolished immediately in every state. In fact she would be featured on US, People and Time as a heroine and Oprah would have the woman's family and friends on her show.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Should Saddam be exectued cmpaley? Bill O'Reilly is on the Tigger plan. He wants to build a big prison in Alaska where we could send these people to do HARD time. Of course it would turn into a Abu Graib or Gitmo deal in no time.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Please the ACLU would be up there so fast and then the environmentalist with a report stating that hardened criminals would be detrimental to indigenous beaver populations. You could liken it to a Chinese rocket before the Clinton administration gave them American rocket technology. They couldn’t even get that thing off the pad!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy LOL, I still say that if I could go out and party with a guy it would be Clinton.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Should Saddam be exectued cmpaley?<< That's not the question. The question is whether or not the death penalty is a moral option where it is possible to lock a dangerous criminal away and completely and permanently separate him or her from society. >>Bill O'Reilly is on the Tigger plan. He wants to build a big prison in Alaska where we could send these people to do HARD time.<< I don't care what O'Reilly says about anything. >>Of course it would turn into a Abu Graib or Gitmo deal in no time.<< Which is something you have no moral qualms about, right? They're not humans, so go ahead and have live out your homoerotic torture fantasies on these creatures. I, on the other hand, believe that I, and this country, will be called to account by a higher power for what we do with what we were given. I certainly don't want to be on the wrong side of that accounting. Do you?
Originally Posted By patrickegan That’s a good idea for a thread Beau. What Dem politician would you’d want/not want to party with and why. LOL
Originally Posted By Beaumandy >>Should Saddam be exectued cmpaley?<< That's not the question cmpaley, it is thequestion. Yes or no on Saddam?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<The question is whether or not the death penalty is a moral option where it is possible to lock a dangerous criminal away and completely and permanently separate him or her from society.>> Personally, I think putting someone to death would be more humane than cutting someone off from society completely... to me that's sounds like torture.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>Should Saddam be exectued cmpaley?<< That's not the question cmpaley, it is thequestion. Yes or no on Saddam?<< The question as posed is a trap. As I am opposed to the death penalty, you know that I would say "no" without qualifiers (such as completely separating him from society with minimal human contact, limited to spiritual direction, very limited and supervised family visits and guards) and you can then say "see, you love Saddam and think he's not evil." If I say "yes" without any qualifiers, then you can say, "then you're okay with the death penalty." I know how the rabid-right works, Beau. It's all about trapping people into saying what you want them to say instead of what they mean. If Hussein can be separated from society permanently and have limited human contact, limited to spiritual direction, limited supervised family members and guards, the NO, he should not be executed. THOSE are the conditions. They MUST accompany the answer. If he cannot be separated, then yes, he should be executed. Chances are, in a third world country like Iraq, he should be executed because they don't have the same technological ability to keep a dangerous criminal separated from society as we do here.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut not completely a trap. I am for the death penalty and dont think he should be executed. Thats too good for him. Daily torture with nursing back to health to be tortured again sounds good. Heck we could pay-per-view it and even auction off torture sessions to the highest bidder.
Originally Posted By cstephens cmpaley wrote: > The question becomes, 2oony, was Clarence Ray Allen completely separated from society in solitary confinement with minimum human contact when he orchastrated the murders of others? If so, then and ONLY then would it be moral to execute him. But there are many that would consider that cruel and unusual punishment and immoral, so they'd be just as against something like that as you are against the death penalty. /cs
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But there are many that would consider that cruel and unusual punishment and immoral, so they'd be just as against something like that as you are against the death penalty.>> The difference is that since only God gives life, only God should take it away.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think the "total separation from society" is an unworkable, unmanageable, unaffordable option. Currently there are some 600 inmates on death row in San Quentin alone. The public would never go for the amount of funding it would take to build individual cells for all those prisoners plus the killers who didn't get the death penalty but life in prision. And I'm not sure it would be legal or even possible to cut off all contact with the outside world. Watch any pprogra about prison life and you see that where there's a will, there's a way for these prisoners to pass messages and contraband.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Just looking at this Pelican Bay facility page seems to imply there is more than 'limited human contact.' <a href="http://www.corr.ca.gov/InstitutionsDiv/INSTDIV/facilities/fac_prison_PBSP.asp" target="_blank">http://www.corr.ca.gov/Institu tionsDiv/INSTDIV/facilities/fac_prison_PBSP.asp</a>
