New Jersey abolishes death penalty

[myata]

From todays news: BBC story.

Harpers crowd with their little death penalty friendly policies is going back in time.

[Borg]

From todays news: BBC story.

Harpers crowd with their little death penalty friendly policies is going back in time.

Despite the arguments - which I am familiar with - if evidence is truly irrefutable - then I support the death penalty.

I am sure this will lead to more Harper bashing by the lovelies on the board - but you did seem to want at least one response.

Regards

Borg

[JerrySeinfeld]

From todays news: BBC story.

Harpers crowd with their little death penalty friendly policies is going back in time.

This little tagline comment speaks to a larger issue: the loonie left loves anything new.

How does "new" or "progressive" really translate into "good"?

Shouldn't there be sterner criteria for good policy than "everyone else is doing it - it's the new thing"?

This is a constant problem with lefties. Judging by the state of affairs in Europe right now (a dn the rest of the world for that matter), I'm not sure I'd be huslting to duplicate the new, everyone's-doing-it models out there.

Going "back in time" as you put it is really irrelevant.

[jazzer]

This is good news.

[myata]

This little tagline comment speaks to a larger issue: the loonie left loves anything new.

How does "new" or "progressive" really translate into "good"?

There's such thing which is generally defined as "progress". When people don't burn each other at a stake anymore. Accept other people, of different beliefs, persuasions and so on, living side by side. Not executing each other too. That's where mainstream of himankind is. Where the future is. Harper with his littly sticky "policies" is going against it - forward, in the past.

[margrace]

My son as a youngster could not understand how killing a person,no matter what he/she had done, proved that it was wrong to kill. Can you explain that to me.

[trex]

My son as a youngster could not understand how killing a person,no matter what he/she had done, proved that it was wrong to kill. Can you explain that to me.

There is no point in killing prisoners, other than satisfying their savage feelings of vengeance. Then there's those who blandly claim that the cost of keeping an individual incarcerated is too high, not worth it.

Nice for them to put a value on human life. Even if they are a murderer. The above question still begs to be answered, but I think the answer is very obvious.

But the one thing that should be changed is the length of sentencing. If a criminal is still high risk should they be let go, where in most cases the cops know they will re-offend, it's just a matter of time?

Certainly killing them eliminates that problem and the expense. Therefore kill all criminals, regardless of their crime.

Edited December 15, 2007 by trex

[Guest American Woman]

My son as a youngster could not understand how killing a person,no matter what he/she had done, proved that it was wrong to kill. Can you explain that to me.

The explanation would be that killing an innocent person is wrong. There are instances where killing is not wrong. Did your son understand that? For example, it's perfectly acceptable to kill in self defense or to save another's life. Had all those murderers on death row been killed in the process of committing murder, no one would have questioned the 'rightness' of it. Some people believe that's what the death sentence does-- prevents a murderer from ever taking an innocent life again. They believe it protects society; that it's protecting innocent lives.

Few things in this world are black and white, and saying "it's wrong to kill" is one of those things since there are circumstances where it's not wrong to kill.

[Borg]

My son as a youngster could not understand how killing a person,no matter what he/she had done, proved that it was wrong to kill. Can you explain that to me.

If you own a vicious dog, you kill it - or for the more tender crowd - put it down.

Some folks are more than rabid - and completely happy to "do it gain".

That is probably a decent explanation to give him.

Borg

[margrace]

There are some well known rules that mankind has had around for a long time. The ten commandents says Thou shalt not kill, no if ands or buts. Dogs are not people Borg and they are made vicious by how they are handled and looked after. So is the dog responsible?

[bush_cheney2004]

Harpers crowd with their little death penalty friendly policies is going back in time.

What does PM Harper or any such policies have to do with the state of New Jersey?

We have already established that government already has policies that extinguish human life, from abortions to law enforcement to military actions. That homicide perps in New Jersey may be spared does not change this.

[Borg]

There are some well known rules that mankind has had around for a long time. The ten commandents says Thou shalt not kill, no if ands or buts. Dogs are not people Borg and they are made vicious by how they are handled and looked after. So is the dog responsible?

Whether it is responsible or not you destroy it - not every bad animal - two legged or four legged is capable of being rehabilitated. Or for that matter interested in being rehabilitated. Better to get rid of them.

Not everyone obeys those commandmants. If they did there would be no need for armies, police, security and so on.

Rose coloured glasses do not change lifes realities.

Borg

Edited December 16, 2007 by Borg

[margrace]

Whether it is responsible or not you destroy it - not every bad animal - two legged or four legged is capable of being rehabilitated. Or for that matter interested in being rehabilitated. Better to get rid of them.

Not everyone obeys those commandmants. If they did there would be no need for armies, police, security and so on.

Rose coloured glasses do not change lifes realities.

Borg

Change begins one step at a time and it begins with me. The sooner people get this message the better.

[Guest American Woman]

There are some well known rules that mankind has had around for a long time. The ten commandents says Thou shalt not kill, no if ands or buts.

So if someone were going to kill you and/or your child, you wouldn't kill in self-defense? You'd allow your life and/or the life of your child to be taken?

[margrace]

Yes this is an old, old argument. It is used to allow us to get our revenge. How often would this happen to someone. There are always ways to allow us to permit murder isn't there? However that does not change the idea that murder is murder.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes this is an old, old argument. It is used to allow us to get our revenge. How often would this happen to someone. There are always ways to allow us to permit murder isn't there? However that does not change the idea that murder is murder.

No matter how old the argument, your answer shows that there are exceptions to your earlier statement: The ten commandents says Thou shalt not kill, no if ands or buts.

For the record, I don't support the death penalty, but I can understand why some do. The only guarentee that a murderer won't kill again is death.

Edited December 16, 2007 by American Woman

[Borg]

Yes this is an old, old argument. It is used to allow us to get our revenge. How often would this happen to someone. There are always ways to allow us to permit murder isn't there? However that does not change the idea that murder is murder.

revenge?

Nope - just culling the herd of those who do not deserve to belong among us.

Try spreading that philosophy in Africa or the middle east. Or perhaps China who carries out the sentence within a day of judgement being announced.

Borg

[sharkman]

From todays news: BBC story.

Harpers crowd with their little death penalty friendly policies is going back in time.

This thread should be in US Politics, or the Morals section, has nothing to do with Canada or Harper or Britian. Why did you use the BBC link. Might as well have gone with the Spain Tribune or something.

Funny how little outcry you hear from the left on capital punishment in Muslim countries. If Canada is going back in time, what the hell is Sharia Law?

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't support the death penalty in any form. I don't believe anybody, especially the state, has the right to end somebody's life (war may be the exception).

Anyways, its a stupid punishment. You can't repay your crime when you die. Trust me, i'd rather me executed than spend my days working my fingers to the bone doing hard manual labour and sleeping in a jail cell alone.

For those people who claim they are jewish/christian, they are hypocrites for supporting the death penalty. Jesus would not kill someone for making a mistake or crime, no matter how horrific. And last time i checked Moses held up some tablets on Mt. Sinai that had something to do with not killing people.....don't think there was an asteriks on there.

The U.S. Republican candidates who support the death penalty and also claim to be religious make me sick.

[bush_cheney2004]

For those people who claim they are jewish/christian, they are hypocrites for supporting the death penalty. Jesus would not kill someone for making a mistake or crime, no matter how horrific. And last time i checked Moses held up some tablets on Mt. Sinai that had something to do with not killing people.....don't think there was an asteriks on there.

Errr...they crucified Jesus too. Nowadays we use lethal injection.

The U.S. Republican candidates who support the death penalty and also claim to be religious make me sick.

But not the Democratic candidates? Favoring the death penalty helped President Clinton get elected...twice.

Wiki says:

Clinton’s 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill expanded the application of the federal death penalty, to include crimes not resulting in death such as running a large-scale drug enterprise. Clinton remarked enthusiastically during his re-election campaign, "My 1994 crime bill expanded the death penalty for drug kingpins, murderers of federal law enforcement officers, and nearly 60 additional categories of violent felons."[131]

[margrace]

An interesting concept that I came across is the people who are against abortion more often than not support the death penalty. If that is not revenge and hypocracy what is it?

[M.Dancer]

It won't affect the number of people executed in New Jersey....

[Sulaco]

An interesting concept that I came across is the people who are against abortion more often than not support the death penalty. If that is not revenge and hypocracy what is it?

It is the belief that innocent life should not be taken but the life of a criminal is up for grabs - for whatever reason. Where is the inconsistency?

Most people who support prison terms for criminals do not believe kids should be caged - what hypocrisy (the most overused and misspelled word on these here internets).

Brings me to a more general point - seems to me that more often than not charges of hypocrisy stem from a willful or negligent misunderstanding of the position assailed. They levelling of the charge usually says more about the accuser than the accused.

Edited December 18, 2007 by Sulaco

[Sulaco]

I don't support the death penalty in any form. I don't believe anybody, especially the state, has the right to end somebody's life (war may be the exception).

Anyways, its a stupid punishment. You can't repay your crime when you die. Trust me, i'd rather me executed than spend my days working my fingers to the bone doing hard manual labour and sleeping in a jail cell alone.

For those people who claim they are jewish/christian, they are hypocrites for supporting the death penalty. Jesus would not kill someone for making a mistake or crime, no matter how horrific. And last time i checked Moses held up some tablets on Mt. Sinai that had something to do with not killing people.....don't think there was an asteriks on there.

The U.S. Republican candidates who support the death penalty and also claim to be religious make me sick.

That seems to me to be a strange proposition. Why is war an exception? Is it also an exception to the hammer of religion you choose to wield - in what I suspect is a non-serious manner? Given your choice of wording you're probably neither Christian nor Jewish - perhaps you just don't understand either religion and have chosen to speak out of ignorance, reducing the complexities of the two religions to nothing.

By the way, most death row inmates disagree with your view of death. most death row inmates choose to spend a decade or more in isolated conditions fighting their sentences.

[Higgly]

If New Jersey and Illinois can ban the death penalty, how can anybody else justify it? If you are going to put up videos of Moslems and Chinese executing people, then put away your pointy finger.

Up here in Canada we finally have come to understand what happens when you trust a jailhouse snitch.