I agree. Some folks need to die. Hell, more than a few of them WANT to die. These are the kind that are beyond redemption, either by drugs, faith, sticks, or anything else. The mental health aspect comes into it but even so, all that brings is drug induced stupor and futile efforts. Some of these people are really no better than animals; they hold no normal human sensibilities. Why that is the case doesn't really matter.
Well, I don't agree. I believe the death penalty is an abomination. Even if the law says it's OK. It makes the government that does the killing no better than whoever it is killing.
I would make an exception for instances such as war, or self-defence. But neither of those are death penalty situations.
Nope. There's no difference in the government henchman killing one guy who's a menace to society and the government's army killing 1,000 Taliban.
Self defence is a bit different, but that is not, as far as I know, premeditated.
There is a YUGE difference between sending an army to Afghanistan and killing 1000 Taliban, which ostensibly is in the nation's defense interests, and a court condemning a prisoner to death, which is moralistic and self-righteous retribution.
In the case at hand, the condemned was already in life w/o parole for a previous murder. He killed a cafeteria worker (stabbed with a shiv). I don't argue that that is not reprehensible, but I suspect appropriate prison procedures could have prevented that. I'd need to know more details of where and how. But offhand psych should have alerted prison authorities not to let this guy 1) Get access to a shiv, 2) Allowed into cafeteria 3) Allowed out of his cell. Just guessing. Poor prison management isn't an excuse for the death penalty.
There is a YUGE difference between sending an army to Afghanistan and killing 1000 Taliban, which ostensibly is in the nation's defense interests, and a court condemning a prisoner to death, which is moralistic and self-righteous retribution.
The only difference is that 999 more guys get killed. Your characterization of the difference shows your philosophical bias, but doesn't change the fact. Certainly it could be argued that one prolific killer in the US causes as much direct risk to US citizens than 1000 Taliban guys in Afghanistan. Or, conversely, one could argue that sending the Army over to kill Taliban is moralistic and self-righteous retribution for, say, hiding terrorists. Killing on behalf and at the instruction of the government is what it is, whether one guy or 1000 guys.
What's the difference in 9/11 and Oklahoma City? Nothing but the size of the building, the number killed, and the native language of the terrorist perps.
Other differences - The Taliban largely chose to be combatants and have some ability to defend themselves.
I don't see much usefulness in arguing the moral equivalence between killing them and killing a murderer. We do so for different reasons. That said, it's coincidental that invading and occupying Afghanistan has been a disaster and the death penalty has no real benefit to society, and both have been very costly.
Look, I'm mostly just holding up an alternate side of the conversation, but that doesn't make my logic wrong. People argue against the death penalty usually on some kind of moral grounds, of killing people being inherently wrong. OKfine. But if you really believe killing people is wrong, you can't go saying "well, not here, or not there." On the other hand, there are a lot of reasons to do away with the (sometimes) death (maybe) penalty laws we have now.
There is a YUGE difference between sending an army to Afghanistan and killing 1000 Taliban, which ostensibly is in the nation's defense interests, and a court condemning a prisoner to death, which is moralistic and self-righteous retribution.
The only difference is that 999 more guys get killed. Your characterization of the difference shows your philosophical bias, but doesn't change the fact. Certainly it could be argued that one prolific killer in the US causes as much direct risk to US citizens than 1000 Taliban guys in Afghanistan. Or, conversely, one could argue that sending the Army over to kill Taliban is moralistic and self-righteous retribution for, say, hiding terrorists. Killing on behalf and at the instruction of the government is what it is, whether one guy or 1000 guys.
What's the difference in 9/11 and Oklahoma City? Nothing but the size of the building, the number killed, and the native language of the terrorist perps.
"What's the difference in 9/11 and Oklahoma City? "
You're conflating an act of war with an act of insanity.
Why not execute all inmates of insane asylums while you're at it?
Look, I'm mostly just holding up an alternate side of the conversation, but that doesn't make my logic wrong. People argue against the death penalty usually on some kind of moral grounds, of killing people being inherently wrong. OKfine. But if you really believe killing people is wrong, you can't go saying "well, not here, or not there." On the other hand, there are a lot of reasons to do away with the (sometimes) death (maybe) penalty laws we have now.
True. My stance is more utilitarian - what's good for society and not. Plus, IMO collective killing makes collectively uglier.
"What's the difference in 9/11 and Oklahoma City? "
You're conflating an act of war with an act of insanity.
Why not execute all inmates of insane asylums while you're at it?
They were both political/religious terrorism and I don't think any of the perps qualified as insane.
"Act of war"? By whom? It was terrorism - maybe politically motivated, but not an act of war by any usual definition. And domestic terrorists are rarely "insane", either. Just evil people with stupid ideas. We like to think of them as insane because we can't stand to think "normal" people would do things like that. We're wrong.
Eight years ago today, just a few minutes before 9 o'clock in the morning in Oklahoma City, Army veteran-turned-anti-government-activist Timothy McVeigh lit a fuse in his rented Ryder truck and walked away from its parking spot in front of the open-for-business Alfred P. Murrah federal office building. A few minutes later, at 9:02 a.m., thousands of pounds of fuel oil and fertilizer inside the truck exploded. The Murrah building was devastated. One hundred and eighty-six people were killed. Hundreds more were wounded. It was, at the time, the largest act of domestic terrorism in the nation's history.
Eight years later, the Oklahoma City bombing can only be viewed through the prism of a far more massive act of terrorism-- the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The death toll from 9-11-01 is roughly 17 times that of the death toll of 4-19-95. And whereas McVeigh's attack in Oklahoma represented the effective end to an active "patriot" movement in America, Osama bin Laden's attack on New York and the Pentagon represented merely the beginning of an all-out blitz against terrorism; a fight that already has changed American society far more than the Oklahoma City bombing ever did.
For the survivors and family members of the victims, the two terror events have brought the same mix of sadness, despair, grief, rage, and resolution. But for the rest of America, it's not unfair to say that the Oklahoma bombing is perceived now as an anomaly-- a mindless and brutal assault on men, women and children by a delusional paranoid-- whereas the 9-11 attack is perceived now as sign that we are all vulnerable, all of us, whether we live near the ocean or on the prairie. To observe the difference is not to dismiss what happened when McVeigh lit that fuse. Indeed, to observe the difference ought to make us appreciate anew just how monumental was the 9-11 hijacking plot and its result. It made even the massive blow in Oklahoma City-- a blow to our pysche as well as to our persons-- look puny in comparison.
So if it doesn't seem quaint, the Oklahoma City bombing and its aftermath in retrospect seem awfully simple and neat. We quickly found out who did it and why and those who might have been disposed to help the bombers didn't vow to continue the fight. We captured McVeigh himself just an hour or so after the blast and Terry Nichols, McVeigh's helper, just a few days later. We brought McVeigh and Nichols to trial in a federal court in Denver and we gave them justice. It wasn't perfect-- remember the FBI files controversy?-- but it wasn't too messy, either. Although we passed a few new anti-terror laws, for example, we didn't need to alter the traditional checks and balances between the executive and judicial branches; an unsettling balancing that has come quickly since 9-11-01.
Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, "has no major mental illness," says Dr. John Smith, the psychiatrist who evaluated McVeigh for the defense during his trial for the 1995 bombing that killed 168 people.
"After I examined Tim, I knew that he was not deranged," says Smith for the first time. McVeigh has, however, suffered from depression, obsessive-compulsive traits, and at least one severe panic attack, according to Smith, who spoke to PrimeTime Thursday with the permission of his former patient.
"He really feels nothing," says Smith. "He feels, in my opinion, fully justified in his action."
Again, you are trying to equate two very different things: an act of domestic terrorism and an act of foreign terrorism. The only similarity is that both attacks occurred on American soil. The perpetrators could not be more ideologically different. I suspect part of your reasoning in this is that by equating the two events, you then justify the death penalty. I don't buy it.
Additionally, the point is somewhat moot: as far as I can recall, all the 9/11 hijackers died in the attack. So the death penalty for them is irrelevant. For them, it was likely a willing sacrifice in the name of their religion. For the OK attackers, they sought to stay alive, but were quickly caught and brought to trial. That's just one of the many differences.
Yes, both were horrific events. But there was no ensuing war related to the OK attack. And we all know there was a war after the 9/11 attack. Would I have spared McVeigh's life? Yes, if the law prohibited capital punishment at the time of his execution. And, for the 9/11 attackers, like I said, it is moot. They all died in the effort. Their leadership in Al Quaeda is another matter. And that was part of a larger war waged by violent fundamentalists against our nation. McVeigh and company were, despite their defence psyh eval, quite delusional.
I suppose we can just agree to disagree on this, M'Kay?
We probably don't disagree at all in regard to our shared belief that the death penalty is a bad thing, but I like to present alternate perspective that doesn't necessarily follow the common narrative. Justifying or opposing the death penalty is largely a matter of how one creates definitions. If one starts with "a guy blows up a building and kills some people" then everything past that is a matter of creating mental boxes. It's a long cultural habit that won't likely be ended, but started at least back with Moses and the Ten Commandments. Supposedly (or a lot of people believe) that the Commandments are directly from God, one of which says "thou shall not kill." Kill. Cue the creative interpreters: "well, it says "kill" but in analysis of the translation, it means "murder" so it's OK to kill opposing tribe members if we come up with a conflict we call "war."
Again, you are trying to equate two very different things: an act of domestic terrorism and an act of foreign terrorism. The only similarity is that both attacks occurred on American soil.
Wrong, the striking thing is how similar violent Muslim and Xtian fundies are. You're just deflecting from your silly assertion that one was "war" and the other "insanity". Sounds like you are excusing White non-Muslim terrorism. Shame.
The perpetrators could not be more ideologically different.
Of course they could. For example, there are ideologies where pacifism is key.
I suspect part of your reasoning in this is that by equating the two events, you then justify the death penalty. I don't buy it.
O Really made his opposition to the death penalty clear from the get-go. Your lying straw man is pathetic.
Additionally, the point is somewhat moot: as far as I can recall, all the 9/11 hijackers died in the attack. So the death penalty for them is irrelevant. For them, it was likely a willing sacrifice in the name of their religion. For the OK attackers, they sought to stay alive, but were quickly caught and brought to trial. That's just one of the many differences.
Yes, both were horrific events. But there was no ensuing war related to the OK attack. And we all know there was a war after the 9/11 attack.
Depends on how one defines the rise of the radical right leading to the election of 45SHOLE.
Would I have spared McVeigh's life? Yes, if the law prohibited capital punishment at the time of his execution. And, for the 9/11 attackers, like I said, it is moot. They all died in the effort. Their leadership in Al Quaeda is another matter.
Why?
And that was part of a larger war waged by violent fundamentalists against our nation. McVeigh and company were, despite their defence psyh eval, quite delusional.
Ummm, McVeigh and Nichols were found sane enough to stand trial and be executed.
I suppose we can just agree to disagree on this, M'Kay?
Your rationalizing of right-wing terrorism is disgusting.
We probably don't disagree at all in regard to our shared belief that the death penalty is a bad thing, but I like to present alternate perspective that doesn't necessarily follow the common narrative. Justifying or opposing the death penalty is largely a matter of how one creates definitions. If one starts with "a guy blows up a building and kills some people" then everything past that is a matter of creating mental boxes. It's a long cultural habit that won't likely be ended, but started at least back with Moses and the Ten Commandments. Supposedly (or a lot of people believe) that the Commandments are directly from God, one of which says "thou shall not kill." Kill. Cue the creative interpreters: "well, it says "kill" but in analysis of the translation, it means "murder" so it's OK to kill opposing tribe members if we come up with a conflict we call "war."
I guess it may just boil down to one's interpretation of what is the thing we call justice.
Ulysses wrote:
Would I have spared McVeigh's life? Yes, if the law prohibited capital punishment at the time of his execution. And, for the 9/11 attackers, like I said, it is moot. They all died in the effort. Their leadership in Al Quaeda is another matter.
neo wrote:
It looks like your "convictions" are contingent on what is "legal" at the time. That means you have no convictions. And it also means you have no concept of justice. Justice is not malleable or reliant on misinterpreted reality.
Ulysses wrote:
Would I have spared McVeigh's life? Yes, if the law prohibited capital punishment at the time of his execution. And, for the 9/11 attackers, like I said, it is moot. They all died in the effort. Their leadership in Al Quaeda is another matter.
neo wrote:
It looks like your "convictions" are contingent on what is "legal" at the time. That means you have no convictions. And it also means you have no concept of justice. Justice is not malleable or reliant on misinterpreted reality.
No, my opinion is that the laws regarding capital punishment in many states still need to be changed.
Why can you not comprehend that?
Is it that your need to belittle and criticize is so great you cannot see what is written?
Ulysses wrote:
Would I have spared McVeigh's life? Yes, if the law prohibited capital punishment at the time of his execution. And, for the 9/11 attackers, like I said, it is moot. They all died in the effort. Their leadership in Al Quaeda is another matter.
neo wrote:
It looks like your "convictions" are contingent on what is "legal" at the time. That means you have no convictions. And it also means you have no concept of justice. Justice is not malleable or reliant on misinterpreted reality.
No, my opinion is that the laws regarding capital punishment in many states still need to be changed.
Why can you not comprehend that?
Is it that your need to belittle and criticize is so great you cannot see what is written?
Your post was confusing. What you "Would ... have" done is not contingent on extant law. You are a capital punishment opponent, that doesn't change.
Why can you not comprehend that?
Is it that your need to belittle and criticize is so great you cannot see what you have written?
Ulysses wrote:
Would I have spared McVeigh's life? Yes, if the law prohibited capital punishment at the time of his execution. And, for the 9/11 attackers, like I said, it is moot. They all died in the effort. Their leadership in Al Quaeda is another matter.
neo wrote:
It looks like your "convictions" are contingent on what is "legal" at the time. That means you have no convictions. And it also means you have no concept of justice. Justice is not malleable or reliant on misinterpreted reality.
No, my opinion is that the laws regarding capital punishment in many states still need to be changed.
Why can you not comprehend that?
Is it that your need to belittle and criticize is so great you cannot see what is written?
You just admitted that my theory of your "convictions" is accurate. You state "no, my opinion is that the laws regarding capital punishment.....need to be changed."
That affirms my original statement that your "convictions" are based on what is legal at the time. If your convictions were genuine, the concept of what is "legal" at any given point in time is irrelevant.
Why can you not comprehend that? And by comprehending it, you would realize that your convictions are not convictions at all if they're based on what is legal at the time. Convictions stand alone and independent of anything else. When you start making exceptions to your convictions, they are no longer convictions; just preferences.
Ulysses wrote:
Would I have spared McVeigh's life? Yes, if the law prohibited capital punishment at the time of his execution. And, for the 9/11 attackers, like I said, it is moot. They all died in the effort. Their leadership in Al Quaeda is another matter.
neo wrote:
It looks like your "convictions" are contingent on what is "legal" at the time. That means you have no convictions. And it also means you have no concept of justice. Justice is not malleable or reliant on misinterpreted reality.
No, my opinion is that the laws regarding capital punishment in many states still need to be changed.
Why can you not comprehend that?
Is it that your need to belittle and criticize is so great you cannot see what is written?
You just admitted that my theory of your "convictions" is accurate. You state "no, my opinion is that the laws regarding capital punishment.....need to be changed."
That affirms my original statement that your "convictions" are based on what is legal at the time. If your convictions were genuine, the concept of what is "legal" at any given point in time is irrelevant.
Why can you not comprehend that? And by comprehending it, you would realize that your convictions are not convictions at all if they're based on what is legal at the time. Convictions stand alone and independent of anything else. When you start making exceptions to your convictions, they are no longer convictions; just preferences.
Neo errs horribly in portraying opinion as conviction. And from that he proceeds to launch a scurrilous attack.
O Really made his opposition to the death penalty clear from the get-go. Your lying straw man is pathetic.