Being partial...

This is going to spark a racial argument..(hopefully not) but here goes.


Me and my friends were talking about the presidential canditates that are battling here in the u.s.

George w Bush.
He plans to give large amounts of aid to black and spanish persons....which is wrong.... he shouldnt be racist... or he shouldnt be partial to one particular race, just because i am white doesnt mean i have loads of cash..hell i am broke as a joke... i can BARELY afford college as it is..and here this ****ers gonna give more aid to a certain race.
Last time a "bush" was in power here we were in war...


Albert Gore
Gore is just someones puppet...he doesnt have a backbone in his body....
And his running mate "liberman" ...he is a jew...i dont have a problem with that..but other people do..and there is gonna be a huge issue over what he does and doesnt do.



Either way ..the american public loses big time!!!

i heard the actor alec baldwin saying..."If george w. becomes president..then i am moving too another country!! haha"

I would never wan't to live in another country... and i don't have anything against the US....but......


the american government sucks...... I can't beleive they allow the people to vote whether they have capital punishment....
if you kill someone, you deserve to be ****ing fried.... and thats that!!!
I don't give a crap what others think... "Oooooh but you'll be taking another life" I don't care... the person killed someone, and he should be killed in the exact same way.....

not these damn "humane" ways of giving "the chair",
for Christs sake the guy killed a human being, who the hell cares about being humane to him at this point??


:mad:

I made a voting program for those who don't know who to vote :)

Code:

---

randomize
if Rnd*2>1 then
  msgbox "Vote Bush"
else
  msgbox "Vote Gore"

---

And you call yourself a guru?
you forgot the

Code:

---

End If

---

Sheeeeeeeeeesh....... ;)


PS:

Where have you been lately... haven't seen ya on ICQ for a long time.... a loooooooooooooong time...

Oh ***** you dennis! Hehe just joking!

They said that i get my connection at tuesday, thats what they said and what happened? Do you know what happened? Do you know what happened? Do you want to know what happened? Why did it happen, i mean not happen?

denniswrenn,

Whether society should use the death penalty is a very difficult and fundamental issue. To be honest, I have been asking myself this question for years, and have still not found an “absolute” answer.

If I base the answer on my instincts, I’ll go for the death penalty. Anyone would, because instinct is what makes a creature behave in a way that ensures survival. And a murderer represents a potential threat to my survival and that of my family, community, society.

However, can I call myself “human” or “civilised” if I resort to instinct alone to solve such a fundamental problem? If I want to earn my place above the animal world, I’ll have to let additional (yes, higher) motives influence my behaviour. Compassion and forgiveness are only two of the many characteristics that help separate us from the primitive state of the animal. Should I not apply them, if I want to call myself humane? And should a humane society not do the same?

Of course, this is only a simplified description of the dilemma – after all, this is not a philosophical forum, plus we should spare our fellow posters ;) but I think that it indicates an opportunity for us as a race to take yet another step forward on the evolutionary ladder, if only we could find a solution that keeps us from curing a wrong with another wrong.

I dont have a certain side to pick on this issue..but here's what i think.


I beleive in that old saying "An eye for an eye"
but yet i believe you have to use some common sense on the subject...

say you catch your wife cheating on you with another man in your bed.... now me personally i would just beat the guys ass real good then divorce with the woman..but other people are different.Waht if someone killed the wife and the man she was having sex with? could you really say it was in cold blood?.. i dont think so.

But, who else is stepping up to the plate? You'd think that if there was a clear alternative, it wouldn't be "throwing away your vote".

Sophtware,

It's always very tempting to try and solve fundamental questions like these by trying to determine what should be done in individual cases. I do not blame you.

But societies - or governments - don't have that luxury. They (actually we, if we want to pretend that laws reflect our moral values) have to try and translate general and abstract ethics into a legal code that needs to be applicable in all cases.

I also think that no government can afford capital punishment because, by killing a human being, it forfeits the right to judge another "killer". It loses it's moral authority by committing the same "crime" as the accused.

Code:

---

randomize
if Rnd * 2 >= 1 then
  msgbox "Vote Bush"
else
  msgbox "Vote Gore"
end if

---

There is a subtle but noticeable difference with the > or the >= !

So you want to reduce Gore's advantage? You voting for Bush then?

(this is from my personal high viewpoint of a different country - as I expect yours is too, unless you're in the US. I'll shut up now)

The code as it was, was partial to Gore. Me trying to equalize chances.

I am from Argentina, a country not famous for electing the best candidates anyway. On right now, we are in a great crisis: our vice-president resigned because of the lack of support from the president, when he accused many senators for corruption. (With our system, the vice-president is also the president of the congress).

Ouch.

I'll stop complaining about Blair then ;)

Death Penalty

Someone mentioned about how we can call ourselves "human" and "civilized" if we have the death penalty.

The whole point of being civilized is that we recognize the necessary laws and restrictions that allow us to function within society. In exchange for the benefits society brings (a level of protection, equal rights (hopefully), a right to your say, right to a fair trial and even RIGHT TO LIFE) we must follow those laws and guidelines.

If someone BREAKS those laws such as a murderer then they have basically said they do not wish to abide by the laws of society. As they are not willing to follow these laws then the benefits that come with them should not be applied to them... thus forfeiting their very life.

It is not "humanity" or "civilization" that makes us cringe at the taking of a life, or in forgiving or being merciful... but Political Correctness that makes us seek to do this... (mostly from religious people).

If a person is proved beyond all shadow of doubt that he willfully murdered another human being and that there are no circumstances leading to that act which were not willfully known at the time then this person by all rights should no longer be governed by the laws of the society he broke.

When we live in a world where a mugger who is shot fleeing from his victim wins $3 million dollars compensation we can't have it both ways... either you obey the law and gain its benefits or you take your chances and accept the consequences.

Just to clarify above... I am specifically talking about 1st Degree Murder.

2nd and 3rd Degree Murder is something that I would consider mitigating circumstances that have to be looked at closely before determining if the course of action is appropriate.

Just in case people ask :

Murder 1 (Premeditated)
Person set out to kill, planned to do it and carried it out

Murder 2
Person didn't plan on killing someone but during the course of events they snapped and killed someone on purpose

Murder 3 (Manslaughter)
Person did something dangerous that resulted in the death of someone else even though they did not intend at any time to kill someone. This includes those people who kill while driving as they didn't set out to kill but they were doing something dangerous that had every potential to kill.

I'm one "religious person" who believes that:
A civilized King (or ruling body) has the power and authority to "kill".
Also, I believe that the above statement does not contradict itself. The next statement is the polarizer. That "king" will be judged on how he judged. (King of Kings stuff.)

Quote:

---

A civilized King (or ruling body) has the power and authority to "kill".
Also, I believe that the above statement does not contradict itself. The next statement is the polarizer. That "king" will be judged on how he judged. (King of Kings stuff.)

---

I would feel incredibly uncomfortable if the power and authority to kill was in the hands of a single person or even a ruling body of people.

Human History has shown us that if you give this power to a single person you end up with Adolph Hitlers and Saddam Hussens. Or when you give it to ruling bodies you end up with Inquisitions and Chinese Governments.

I don't believe in the saying "Power Corrupts"... I believe "Power attracts the corruptable".

I would much prefer to see the authority and power to kill be in the hands of the "law" and that its validation is dictated by that law and not down to the whim of a particular King or ruling body.

Regardless how the king may be judged it doesn't justify the endless torture and attrocity he may commit BEFORE he reaches that judgement.

Gen,

When you quoted VirtuallyVB, you obviously overlooked the fact that he added "(or ruling body)" after "A civilized King". Which makes your last post a bit unnecessary.

I'm everything BUT a religious person, and I refrain from killing people, not out of political correctness or out of fear for any worldly law. I do so because my own mind tells me that it would be wrong and that it would make me less of a human being - it would cost me my own (human) life, even if I go uncaught.

You define:
Murder 1 (Premeditated)
Person set out to kill, planned to do it and carried it out

This is of course the correct legal definition. But why would you have it apply to individuals only? In my mind, any authority that sets out to kill, plans to execute, and carries out the sentence is no less guilty of what you describe than any individual, i.e. Murder 1.

[Edited by Karel on 10-10-2000 at 05:45 PM]

Karel

Quote:

---

When you quoted VirtuallyVB, you obviously overlooked the fact that he added "(or ruling body)" after "A civilized King". Which makes your last post a bit unnecessary

---

No I didn't... you obviously overlooked the references I made to ruling bodies. I wonder if you even read my post???

Quote:

---

of a single person or even a ruling body of people.

Or when you give it to ruling bodies you end up with Inquisitions and Chinese Governments.

whim of a particular King or ruling body.

---

So thats 3 times I stated "ruling body".

Quote:

---

I do so because my own mind tells me that it would be wrong and that it would make me less of a human being

---

So that means you are against abortion and euthenasia.

Quote:

---

But why would you have it apply to individuals only?

---

I never said it would apply to individuals only... you got that implication because you somehow managed to read my post but cover your eyes at the crucial times.

Can you explain to me how it is possible for you to have read my post and completely missed all 3 references to "ruling bodies" and then managed to construct a reply that continued this mistake without ONCE bothering to check against the material you were responding to?

I'm curious as to how that is possible ;)

Oh bloody hell does it always have to end up in an argument? This was perfectly civilised up until a couple of posts ago, now there's aggression and animosity. Give it a rest.


Back to the topic of capital punishment:

I agree in principle that if a murderer has committed a murder which conforms to the specifications of Murder 1, the death penalty is appropriate. This is in an ideal world where the judicial system can correctly identify every time whether an accused person is guilty or innocent. However, every judicial system on this planet is far from perfect. I simply do not trust the system well enough to condone the execution of a convicted murderer because I am not convinced that they have been correctly identified.

I believe that, under British criminal law at least, 98% certainty is required that the person is guilty in order to convict them. How often do you think a jury is 98% certain? I'd wager it's in less than half of all cases where there is a conviction.

Someone once said, "It is better to free ten guilty men than to imprison one innocent." I think that's pretty close to the truth.

Now, you might say that this has more to do with the crappy system of justice than the death penalty, but the difference is that once someone is executed, if it is later discovered that they were innocent it is too late.

Actually in a neat little link to the original topic of US presidential candidates, I think I saw on the news Bush saying he believed that everyone on death row or who had been executed (maybe in his term in office there... Texas is it?) is/was guilty. I think that's very very naive.

It is a common joke that runs around the u.s. about the "Lone star state of texas" That they will convicted a child and throw the child in prison form accidental murder ( now i mean a 10 year old child).

I mean in texas you can legally own a shotgun at age 15, no wonder george bush thought all the prisoners were guilty.

With that kind of mentallity..everyone is a murder suspect.

Harry

I couldn't agree with you more. I think these cases should be reserved for those people caught with the murder weapon in their hand and a T-Shirt that reads "Yes I just killed them".

The only point I was adding to your post was that the decision came from the law itself (Hopefully an ongoing evolution and refinement from generations of intelligent and forward thinking people) than from the whim of a single person or "current" ruling body of people.

KFayal kind of had one eye closed when he read my post and it degenerated from there.

And I don't see the connection.

You mave my appologies KFayal....

I "meant" to say "Karel" but I had just finished a long reply to you and your name must have been stuck in my mind.

I'm sorry for my mistake.

All right, MY $.02 cents worth =>

There are 2 questions going on here

1. Is the Death penalty allowable in a theoretical sense, that is should it exist at all

2. Is the APPLICATION of the death penalty allowable in a practical sense, that is is it applied in all cases equally.

The answer to 1 is up for debate. The answer to 2 is not. If you're rich, you don't get the death penalty.

In the past 100 years NO person who could be defined as wealthy (in $$$ terms people....) has been executed. I cannot remember a case where a rich person was even charged with a capital crime.


DerFarm

In the UK some years back a video was available on the high street called Executions. It was I think compiled be Amnesty International, anyway it was released by mistake and withdrawn from the shops some time later and it documented executions from the 1900’s to present time off murderers, prisoners, soldiers, women, children by several different lets say methods from sword, gun, stones, axe, hammer the list was endless. Now in my time I’ve seen dead and dying people and never paid much thought to it but after watching that video and witnessing the many people being killed for their beliefs and crimes it made me think a lot about the human nature and the way people think. If for instance you think an eye for an eye then you are (If you watch this video) as bad as the victim/criminal. It is a must see video if you can get it. About thirty of us watched the video and we were all affected by it. Killing is a tragedy in its own right and killing a killer is just adding to the tragedy. There are so many miscarriages of justice the LAW system is flawed in so many ways (OJ Simpson, Louise Woodward). Police corruption it goes on. Basically if you see someone being killed for a crime he/she has committed with your own eyes then I think deep down your views would change.


Spud

DerFarm

That is another problem with our system. Justice can be purchased with enough high-powered lawyers.

Personally I think its a travesty of justice that a company can just keep pouring money at something until the other side goes broke and thus cannot be what is right.

Spud

We are not talking about an "eye for an eye" here. That is revenge and is as you say just as criminal as the person who did it.

What we are talking about is society... and about the laws of that society and what you have to do in order gain the benefits of them.

When a person showed beyond all reasonable doubt that they no longer wish to abide by the laws of a society then they do not deserve the priviledges of that society. If they remove the life of a human being under the protection of those laws then their "right to life" is also forfeit.

If a lion was to roam the streets killing people we would kill it instantly, or put a rabid dog down... Do we consider that an "eye for an eye"? Nope, it is simply the gaining of balance.

The only reason people do not like the idea is because it makes their frail sensibilities uncomfortable.... and they fail to understand that you cannot have a system and then have people who decide to work OUTSIDE of that system whenever they feel like it.

How many people do you think would commit 1st Degree murder if they knew being found guilty would instantly get them the death penalty and that they would lose all rights as a human being?

You may ask "What about forgiveness?", Did they show any?

Here in the Netherlands was a Taxi driver killed with a shotgun right in his head.
The man was captures and he only have to sit out in prison for 10 +- 3 = 7 years. And he
wanted to kill him bad. Because the Taxi driver didnt give him all the money.

"His lawyer is saying to the judge, that 7 years is still to much for a murder. I want a higherappeal"..

Well.. What do you think about this country?

Do you want to know what I find interesting.

That the lawyer said 7 years as too long for murder. Had the person killed been his wife or mother or daughter he would be crying for the man to fry in hell.


People never want to put themselves in the shoes of the poor victims and see how it feels from their side of the fence knowing that the person murdered had in some cases 50-60 years stolen from them and every member of their family.

Gen -- You talk a LOT. Have you ever killed anyone? have
you ever had anyone try to kill you? Have you ever seen
someone killed?

How do you know what the lawyer would say, and DON'T give
any of the "Well, ANYONE would..." crap! I didn't. How
would you know of the feelings of the victim? You're
putting words in MY mouth and I don't like it.

DerFarm

I believe that if anyone kills anyone else, then they should be instantly destroyed.

Simple.

I'm not arguing the point here of whether it can be proved that they killed him or not I'm merely stating absolutes.

If someone walks up to someone and shoots them (for example) in front of bog loads of witnesses then they should be destroyed. Impartially. Completely. No arguments.

Just for background info (DerFarm) I'll not answer your first question to Gen-X, but I have both nearly been killed and seen people die. I have strong views on this subject (despite my attempts at impartiallity denoted by my name).

My views may seem a little harsh, but I have my reasons for them.

I agree that if somebody kills somebody in cold blood, for absolutely no reason, they should be terminated ASAP.

and the "pleading insanity" crap is just crap... they aren't insane, if they were they would have killed a lot more people.

BTW: Where the hell do you live?
almost been killed, and seen people die.....