Death penalty or not?

[Dr Mordrid]

i think arbitrary in this case means that you can't just kill a person at your sole discretion?

If I find you in my house at 3 AM, you do a home invasion or you attack me or my family on the street it's totally at my discretion, legally and otherwise. If/when that happens and I think you're a threat it's cold and methodical - you die. I won't necessarily like doing it, but my family comes first. Period. Someone please load up the carpet cleaner and get me some wallboard patches.

[Umfriend]

Arbitrary does mean no one should be killed for no reason, without cause, rule of law, based on whims or chance etc.

6.1 does in no way preclude a death penalty.

[Brian Ellis]

"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

—Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Arbitrary does mean no one should be killed for no reason, without cause, rule of law, based on whims or chance etc.

6.1 does in no way preclude a death penalty.

6.1 does and absolutely preclude the death penalty.

The word 'arbiter' is pure Latin and has the sole meaning of judge. 'Arbitrary' has a specific meaning in law, 'dependent on the decision of a legally recognized authority' (OED). The last sentence of 6.1 therefore means that no judge can ordain that a person shall be deprived of his life.

I would have thought, in this 21st century, that civilised humanity would have advanced beyond savagery and the lex talionis. It is shocking to hear that anyone today condoning the state murder of someone for purely economic reasons. What is the price of a human life? Thirty pieces of silver? This is arbitrary in the non-legal sense, as well.

[TransformX]

6.1 does and absolutely preclude the death penalty.

The word 'arbiter' is pure Latin and has the sole meaning of judge. 'Arbitrary' has a specific meaning in law, 'dependent on the decision of a legally recognized authority' (OED). The last sentence of 6.1 therefore means that no judge can ordain that a person shall be deprived of his life.

I would have thought, in this 21st century, that civilised humanity would have advanced beyond savagery and the lex talionis. It is shocking to hear that anyone today condoning the state murder of someone for purely economic reasons. What is the price of a human life? Thirty pieces of silver? This is arbitrary in the non-legal sense, as well.

I would have thought, in this 21st century, that civilised humanity would have advanced beyond savagery. It is shocking to hear that anyone today condoning the state murder of someone for purely economic reasons. What is the price of a human life? To think some soiled people would spend a fortune on some eco-friendly modern vehicle instead of using said silver to save hundreds if not thousands of ACTUAL lives! That people who so overwhelmingly defend the lives of sadistic murderers will stand silent when so many friendly loving animals are put to death just because some evil person decided to let them breed and neglect the offspring or worse. That people will happily have their tax money abused for 'humane' living conditions for people who should never return to society while allowing homeless people to starve and die.
Isn't each and every homeless person who dies in the streets, a murder by the government for purely economic reasons?
Your words Brian, can be easily turned around to accuse you of the same and worse. Don't show us a mirror if you're not prepared to stare into the same yourself.

[ND66]

OK, before I say no to Death Penalty, please explain to me how life without consequences would look like?

How would not you, but criminals live it?

Would slap on the hand prevent this from happening?

Calif. town rattled by alleged rape of girl, 15

By TERRY COLLINS
Associated Press Writer
Oct 27, 9:41 PM EDT

RICHMOND, Calif. (AP) -- The gang rape and beating of a 15-year-old girl on school grounds after her homecoming dance was horrific enough. But even more shocking, police say, was that up to two dozen people watched and did nothing to stop it.

The attack over the weekend rattled this crime-ridden city of 120,000 in the San Francisco Bay area, where one police official called it one of the most heinous crimes he has ever seen. Some students have already left the school in response to the attack.

"It's not safe there at all," said 16-year-old Jennie Steinberg, whose mother let her transfer out of the school Tuesday. "I'm not going back."

The victim, a sophomore, had left the dance and was drinking alcohol in a school courtyard with a group when she was attacked, police said.

Two suspects were in custody Monday, but police said as many as seven ranging in age from 15 to mid-20s attacked the girl for more than two hours at a dimly lit area near benches Saturday night. As many as two dozen people saw the rape without notifying police.

Officers found the girl semiconscious and naked from the waist down near a picnic table. She remains hospitalized with non-life threatening injuries.

"This was a barbaric act. I still cannot get my head around the fact that numerous people either watched, walked away or participated in her assault," Lt. Mark Gagan said Tuesday. "It's one of the most disturbing crimes in my 15 years as a police officer."

Gagan would not comment on rumors that observers took video of the attack on cell phones and may have posted it online.

Manuel Ortega, a 19-year-old former student, was arrested after trying to flee the scene. He is being held on $800,000 bail for investigation of rape and robbery. Attempts to reach Ortega at the jail Tuesday were unsuccessful.

A 15-year-old student also was booked late Monday on one count of sexual assault, Gagan said.

Late Tuesday, SWAT teams were preparing to make more arrests as police are also offering a $20,000 reward they hope will bring more people forward with any information.

Even though he said as many as two dozen people were witnesses, Gagan said officials are still trying to determine the exact number of people involved.

"I'm confident that the list will expand and at the end of our investigation we will get a clear indication of who was there and who did what," Gagan said.

The attack occurred in a city that has dealt with its share of vicious crimes in recent years, and the school recently approved surveillance cameras after a series of violent crimes. In one case a few years back, a student was shot outside the school, ran inside and died in the then-principal's hands, said Marin Trujillo, a spokesman for the West Contra Costa Unified School District.

Richmond is an industrialized conclave near the San Francisco Bay that is known as one of the nation's most dangerous cities. In 2007, Richmond had 47 homicides, and the murder rate led the state for cities with populations of 100,000 or more, surpassing Los Angeles and Oakland.

That number dropped to 27 in 2008 but has spiked to 44 killings so far this year, amid drug dealing and gang activity that has engulfed the town, Gagan said.

Gagan said the girl left the dance and was walking to meet her father for a ride home when a classmate invited her to join a group drinking in the courtyard. The girl had consumed a large amount of alcohol by the time the assault began, police said. Gagan said the girl's father tried to call her cell phone, but no one answered.

Gagan said police received a tip about a possible assault on campus from a young woman who heard two males bragging about it. She was found nearly an hour after the dance, which more than 400 people attended, had ended.

Neil Smelser, a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of California-Berkeley, said Tuesday that the incident could be categorized as "bystander indifference."

"The questions become, 'Why didn't they do something moral to stop an immoral situation? Why didn't they behave morally by calling the police, telling school officials?'" said Smelser, who has written extensively on collective behavior.

"It's very likely that they didn't have any emotional or social ties to the victim," Smelser continued. "If they had any linkage to her, then maybe we'd have a different outcome."

Trujillo said there were four police officers and 15 school site supervisors monitoring the dance. He said there were no problems during the dance inside the school gym, calling it "a success." He said two site supervisors were allowed to leave because they felt they had enough security inside.

But Trujillo called the rape outside on school grounds a "tragic incident."

"We wished this had never happened. This was such a heinous crime," Trujillo said. "We are all going to learn from this."

Student Joseph Machado, 16, said the mood inside Richmond High School on Tuesday was tense as officers were questioning fellow students. Two squad cars were parked outside the main entrance, and school security teams were patrolling the grounds in golf carts.

"Some of my friends were saying, 'What if that happened to me?'" said Machado, whose parents didn't allow him to go to the dance. "This school, this city already has a bad reputation and now this makes it worse."

[Brian Ellis]

I would have thought, in this 21st century, that civilised humanity would have advanced beyond savagery. It is shocking to hear that anyone today condoning the state murder of someone for purely economic reasons. What is the price of a human life? To think some soiled people would spend a fortune on some eco-friendly modern vehicle instead of using said silver to save hundreds if not thousands of ACTUAL lives! That people who so overwhelmingly defend the lives of sadistic murderers will stand silent when so many friendly loving animals are put to death just because some evil person decided to let them breed and neglect the offspring or worse. That people will happily have their tax money abused for 'humane' living conditions for people who should never return to society while allowing homeless people to starve and die.
Isn't each and every homeless person who dies in the streets, a murder by the government for purely economic reasons?
Your words Brian, can be easily turned around to accuse you of the same and worse. Don't show us a mirror if you're not prepared to stare into the same yourself.

You are a champion at introducing non sequiturs and other irrelevancies into discussions. What have vehicles or animals or breeding thereof or homeless people to do with capital punishment? Nothing whatsoever. So let's stop hair-splitting and return to the subject. I maintain that anyone is little more than a savage if (s)he can put a monetary value on a human life because it is pretended that killing a person is cheaper than keeping him in jail (it is not proven that it is cheaper, anyway). That is the least convincing of all pro-death-penalty arguments, because the logical conclusion of extending this argument is that anyone sentenced to more than, say, one year should be automatically executed because it is cheaper.

And there is the world of a difference between the state deliberately and actively murdering someone by hanging, beheading, injection, electrocution, a bullet in the head or whatever and someone dying of abject poverty. In this day and age, in civilised societies, there is no reason for this to happen unless the victim has abused or not accepted available aid (e.g., is on the run, spent everything on drugs or alcohol or is mentally deficient etc.). This country has a largish proportion of poor people (and refugees) who cannot make ends meet, but they do not die, despite the state not being generous with aid. This village (pop. 1500) has at least 6 persons with <€100/month income and 2 or 3 single mother families with 2-4 kids and little revenue. These people do not die, even though some of them do not even qualify for government aid. The village community helps them survive. If a relatively poor country like Cyprus can do this, then richer countries could, as well. Anyway, if a death should occur, you cannot say that it is state-sponsored murder, the same as an execution.

[TransformX]

You are a champion at introducing non sequiturs and other irrelevancies into discussions. What have vehicles or animals or breeding thereof or homeless people to do with capital punishment? Nothing whatsoever.

We (government) have a budget. The way we decide who gets $$ and who doesn't, we decide who lives in relatively good (humane) conditions : prisoners.
The same way, we decide who dies and how: we decide who gets medication and at what price. We decide if and how much does state health insurance covers, we decide whether there are homeless people and what are their life conditions (innocent people who wish they had half of what prisoners get) etc. etc. etc. Every dime you spend goes somewhere. Either it feeds rich people and their employees at the corporates you buy from, or it saves lives. Your vote, your wallet, your choice.

So let's stop hair-splitting and return to the subject. I maintain that anyone is little more than a savage if (s)he can put a monetary value on a human life because it is pretended that killing a person is cheaper than keeping him in jail

So killing horrid people is bad while killing cute animals is good?

(it is not proven that it is cheaper, anyway). That is the least convincing of all pro-death-penalty arguments, because the logical conclusion of extending this argument is that anyone sentenced to more than, say, one year should be automatically executed because it is cheaper.

I calculated both the crime and the sentence.

And there is the world of a difference between the state deliberately and actively murdering someone by hanging, beheading, injection, electrocution, a bullet in the head or whatever and someone dying of abject poverty. In this day and age, in civilised societies, there is no reason for this to happen unless the victim has abused or not accepted available aid (e.g., is on the run, spent everything on drugs or alcohol or is mentally deficient etc.). This country has a largish proportion of poor people (and refugees) who cannot make ends meet, but they do not die, despite the state not being generous with aid. This village (pop. 1500) has at least 6 persons with <€100/month income and 2 or 3 single mother families with 2-4 kids and little revenue. These people do not die, even though some of them do not even qualify for government aid. The village community helps them survive. If a relatively poor country like Cyprus can do this, then richer countries could, as well. Anyway, if a death should occur, you cannot say that it is state-sponsored murder, the same as an execution.

1. The state, by death penalty can not murder anyone. It defies the term.
2. Homeless people freeze to death every winter, don't delude yourself to think otherwise.
3. Homeless people get harassed, beaten, robbed and murdered because they lack shelter.
4. Your village is not an example.
5. Yes, I can say it's state sponsored death. The state chose to invest it's limited resources in prisoners humane conditions instead of welfare. It's that simple.

[Brian Ellis]

Again, non-sequiturs. Stop bringing in stupid emotions like cute animals, health services etc. These have nothing to do with executions. Some countries DO murder people by executing them.

OK, you asked for this: Nazi Germany did not murder any Jews, Gypsies or homosexuals, because YOU say that the state cannot murder. That is the most stupid statement ever. No one was murdered in Kosovo or Cambodia either, because the State condoned their deaths, it was not murder. Of course the State can murder and they do it whenever they execute anyone. Just because they choose to euphemise it into capital punishment or execution does not make it any less the fact of murder. There is a trial ongoing for the last 3 days, without the accused, for state-sponsored murder.

[TransformX]

Again, non-sequiturs. Stop bringing in stupid emotions like cute animals, health services etc. These have nothing to do with executions.

Yes they do, just because you have a certain notion about something doesn't make it right and try not to call me or my statements stupid or otherwise please, I can be far more creative than you are with insults.

Some countries DO murder people by executing them.

OK, you asked for this: Nazi Germany did not murder any Jews, Gypsies or homosexuals, because YOU say that the state cannot murder.

Did they stand trial?

That is the most stupid statement ever. No one was murdered in Kosovo or Cambodia either, because the State condoned their deaths, it was not murder.

See my reply above. And please, cut the insults.

Of course the State can murder and they do it whenever they execute anyone.

No, the death penalty is just as valid as taking someone's other basic rights, such as freedom

Just because they choose to euphemise it into capital punishment or execution does not make it any less the fact of murder. There is a trial ongoing for the last 3 days, without the accused, for state-sponsored murder.

So you view Homo-Erectus as something you can murder, but other mammals are beneath it?

[TransformX]

Also Brian, you seem to ignore a simple fact. Just because you don't pull the triger/stab/press the button/whatever doesn't mean your actions and votes (see Nazi Germany) don't equal murder.
Since you see the actions of WWII Germany as murder, you can see the actions or therefore lack of action of any form of government that leads to death of innocents as murder.

Edit: Whenever any of us spends money on luxury, be it a new car, television set etc. we consciously choose our own comfort over the lives of people that money could have saved. We are all aware of the state of people in third world countries as well as in our countries and cities. We know there are kitchens for the poor, we know there are places accepting donations to help the sick and unprivileged. By choosing our own comfort, more than once, we choose it against their death. Plain and simple. A child can be educated during a year in Africa for the cost of 1 music CD. Imagine how much you could do with the price of a TV set or a car!
We are all accountable for deaths of sentient beings all over the globe simply by our consumer choices. Don't be naive.

[Brian Ellis]

If you actually read what I wrote instead of flying off at tangents at every opportunity, you will see that it was my own statement that I qualified as stupid. Of course, the chip on your shoulder obviously saw this as referring to yourself. As you are so much more creative than me, by your own confession, by talking about murder of non-Homo erectus creatures, carry on. You may be H. erectus but I sure ain't, so maybe that let's me out as we are talking about different species.

I've wasted too much time. I've made my point that executions are evil. That's it! Amen.

[TransformX]

Most of what you do is evil Brian. Slowly destroying lives is nowhere better than terminating them immediately. I don't consider people such as Dorothy Dixon to be sentient enough to be a H.Sapiens. Just because she stands straight doesn't make her human.

Anyway, you keep choosing the easy way out Brian. Don't execute people, pour money to keep them miserably alive and let innocents die because the budget got depleted. Amen indeed

[Dr Mordrid]

All killing is homicide by definition, however there are grades if homicide and one is justifiable homicide which is not a crime and not murder (see previous argument thread over 10 Commandments);

military kills during war or police actions
state or federal government executes for murder
cop kills in defense of self, others etc.
citizen kills in defense of self, others or property (logically: an extension of the militia/citizens arrest functions)
etc.
etc.

In the west the concept of justifiable homicide goes all the way back to the Greek (actually, Atenian) Laws of Solon.

[Dr Mordrid]

Just read that John Muhammad, one of the the DC snipers, is due to be executed by lethal injection on Nov. 10th, though it'll probably be delayed shortly for a SCOTUS appeal. Chief Justice John Roberts is the intake justice for the 4th district which includes Virginia, where the murder he's being executed for occurred. He doesn't grant many murder cases to go to the full court.

Anyone doubt he deserves it?

Story.....

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - The mastermind of the 2002 Washington, DC-area sniper attacks will die by lethal injection next month, Virginia officials said Tuesday.

John Allen Muhammad declined to choose between lethal injection and electrocution, so under state law the method defaults to lethal injection, Virginia Department of Corrections spokesman Larry Traylor said.

Muhammad is scheduled to be executed Nov. 10 for the October 2002 slaying of Dean Harold Meyers at a Manassas gas station during a string of shootings.

The three-week killing spree in October 2002 left 10 dead in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

Muhammad and his teenage accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, were also suspected of shootings in several other states, including a killing in Louisiana and another in Alabama. Malvo is serving a life sentence in prison.

Muhammad's lawyers have asked the Virginia governor for clemency and plan to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court early next month.

[Umfriend]

6.1 does and absolutely preclude the death penalty.

The word 'arbiter' is pure Latin and has the sole meaning of judge. 'Arbitrary' has a specific meaning in law, 'dependent on the decision of a legally recognized authority' (OED). The last sentence of 6.1 therefore means that no judge can ordain that a person shall be deprived of his life.

I would have thought, in this 21st century, that civilised humanity would have advanced beyond savagery and the lex talionis. It is shocking to hear that anyone today condoning the state murder of someone for purely economic reasons. What is the price of a human life? Thirty pieces of silver? This is arbitrary in the non-legal sense, as well.

I beg to differ. I do not have the OED but either they are wrong or there is more to it.

Arbiter, in Latin, means judge alright. But there is the 'arbitarius' which means random or at will.

And this is how it is meant. A judge may not sentence to death, correct, just because he feels like it. In that sense, anyone issuing a death sentence acts as judge BTW. A death sentence may be given, however, if the law allows it.

The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrary

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrarily

Moreover, if it did preclude the death penalty then why was there a need for a 'side-letter' (The second optional bla bla bla)?

On economics, if that was directed at me, I am somewhat dissapointed by the non sequitur that for a piece of silver I would have someone killed. But Brian, can we at least agree that ours means are limited? If not, then there would be no need for economics. Our means are limited and what we spend on one thing will be at the opportunity cost of another. If you're ready to accept that fact I'd be willing to continue a debate.

One thing I do wonder: is it your position that in those past barbarci years the death penalty was issued on economic grounds? LOL!