Pages: [1] 2 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Death Penalty (Read 3752 times)
|
|
dgm6780
|
Where does the FSP stand on the death penalty? Maine, my state of choice, currently doesnt have the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
|
It's been argued back and forth but I don't think there is an "official" FSP stand on the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Strictly speaking, the FSP doesn't take official positions on any public policies; however, my guess is that the median viewpoint of the membership is that the death penalty should be available only for the most psychotic and incorrigible of murderers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
Greggers69
|
my personal opinion is if you take life you should give yours. Greg
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All is stake, and the little conviencys and comforts of life when in comptition with our Liberty, ought to be rejected, not with reluctance but with pleasure.
George Mason
|
|
|
ShrineGuard
Guest
|
Yes, but when the dealth penalty is discussed, you are not 'giving' you life away, the government is taking it. From a personal point of view, there are many, many criminals I'd like to see dead, but I don't like at all the idea of a government killing people legally.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
alecmuller
|
My viewpoint is close to ShrineGuard's: I think there are crimes worthy of the death penalty, but there's no one on Earth I'd trust enough to administer it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
|
How about the case where a criminal stages a firefight with the police in view of hundreds. How can there possibly be _any_ doubt that he is guilty if he is captured during the firefight.
There are cases where the guilt of the criminal is beyond _any_ doubt, and in those cases, it is most efficient to remove them from the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
underwater
|
There are cases where the guilt of the criminal is beyond _any_ doubt, and in those cases, it is most efficient to remove them from the earth. Ya, but we should not confuse justice with efficiency. If the "criminal" was shooting at the police because they were about to unlawfully take his property then I am all for the guy with the gun. They put Jesus and Count von Stauffenberg to death for "obvious" crimes. If killing is a crime in the first place then the government should not operate above the law - otherwise it sets a poor example! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- I will only vote for people that live in my local community and that are willing to meet with me to discuss the issues.
- I will only pay a tax (preferably a LVT) that is levied by my local community and spent on local infrastructure improvements and security.
- To me, FedGov does not exist.
|
|
|
|
maestro
|
If the law is unjust, we have a separate problem, but that bears no relation to the method of punishment.
In both the case of Jesus and Stauffenberg, they admitted to committing the "crimes" and were executed for it. It would have been as unjust if they had been sentenced to community service.
Killing has never been a crime. _Murder_ is a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
underwater
|
If the law is unjust, we have a separate problem, but that bears no relation to the method of punishment. Au contraire! The death penalty is an irreversible punishment while community service is reversible via reparations. I think the model in which a convicted murderer must work at the behest of his victim's family members is the best form of punishment. It removes the temptation to use the death penalty for political gain. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- I will only vote for people that live in my local community and that are willing to meet with me to discuss the issues.
- I will only pay a tax (preferably a LVT) that is levied by my local community and spent on local infrastructure improvements and security.
- To me, FedGov does not exist.
|
|
|
|
maestro
|
If a nation is going to make crimes out of political expression, do you think they're going to listen to your opinion about what kind of punishment they should use? Let's keep the issues separate here.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
underwater
|
If a nation is going to make crimes out of political expression, do you think they're going to listen to your opinion about what kind of punishment they should use? Let's keep the issues separate here. Well, I would like to see the Free State develop a tradition that views the death penalty as verboten. I think that such a tradition would protect our descendants from tyranny. If putting the worst among us to death is inconceivable then the best of humanity will always be free. I realize that there are issues of deterrence that I am not addressing or glossing over. However, suicidal maniacs have so far carried out some of the worst crimes of the 21st century. Clearly the death penalty is becoming less effective. So, why should we, an enlightened society, continue to use it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- I will only vote for people that live in my local community and that are willing to meet with me to discuss the issues.
- I will only pay a tax (preferably a LVT) that is levied by my local community and spent on local infrastructure improvements and security.
- To me, FedGov does not exist.
|
|
|
ShrineGuard
Guest
|
I think that if we look at the fact that dictators such as Stalin and Hitler all used 'Death penalties' so to speak, we can easily find justification for not having a death penalty.
With crimes that one may call 'obvious,' who is the one describing 'obvious?' The government. As time passes, 'obvious' goes from 100 witnesses to 50, then to 25, and so on. Better to just keep such a power away from the government.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
|
If injustice is institutionalized, they will probably use the death penalty anyway. If injustice is _not_ institutionalized, then the death penalty is not inherently unjust.
The death penalty is just one more form of justice, where we can rid ourselves of a criminal without housing them for 40+ years. If the justice system is not corrupt, then it is useful. If the justice system is corrupt, then it will happen regardless of anyone's wishes.
As such, the argument that the death penalty is used for injustice, and therefore is unjust itself is logically flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
underwater
|
Axiom #1: All justice systems are corrupt.
Can we agree on this? If not, how about...
Axiom #2: All justice systems tend toward corruption.
Or perhaps…
Axiom #3: All justice systems are fallible.
If any of these is true then the death penalty is inherently unjust because it is irreversible. Anyway, the cost of executing a death penalty case (no pun intended) is extremely expensive. I wonder if it costs less to simply house someone for 40+ years. That being said, I do not expect Free State jails to be resorts. More like solitary confinement with bread and water...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- I will only vote for people that live in my local community and that are willing to meet with me to discuss the issues.
- I will only pay a tax (preferably a LVT) that is levied by my local community and spent on local infrastructure improvements and security.
- To me, FedGov does not exist.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
