Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (60292)	12/13/2005 5:46:43 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 173976

Initiating violence is thoroughly immoral and repugnant. So that means when General Eisenhower gave the GO! for D-Day, he was acting immorally? Hmmmmm..... War and that enemy fighter: In DP cases, you're not SPECULATING as to whether the perp will kill. He already has and has been legally judged and sentenced. I'm having a problem seeing a difference between a soldier hunting other soldiers and a gang memeber hunting other gang members. By your standards, BOTH are initiating violence and are guilty of murder. Your argument falls of itself. Civilized nations seek to minimize the extent of them and do not kill captured enemy combatants. Well, then, my friend, we are not civilized, Just ask the liberals on this thread. do not kill captured enemy combatants You wouldn't care to bet American soldiers have not killed POWs, would you? Executions sanctioned and carried out by the state, no matter how you want to guild the lily, are simply cold blooded killings, no matter how emotionally gratifying they may be to many people. If the state kills only killers? It's not like that soldier or gang member shooting some wearing the wrong color cloth. There is a legal procedure that must be followed. Again, the state already has far too much power. I strongly oppose giving the state the power to kill. You already did when you said it could wage war? What of Iraq? When did Iraq bomb Pearl Harbor? Is the US Army justified in being there or simply committing murder?

To: miraje who wrote (60292)	12/13/2005 5:52:51 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"Civilized nations seek to minimize the extent of them and do not kill captured enemy combatants. IMO, the same logic should apply toward captured criminals." We can assume that when capturing an enemy combatant, the captured is acting on a loyalty to their group and not just to harm others for corrupt self serving motives. So there should be some mutual respect. When the conflict of groups is resolved the status of the captured should, in most cases be automatically resolved as well. A captured criminal is not the same. A captured criminal is acting to harm others for some corrupt self serving motive. This puts them on the wrong side of the basic right and wrong condition of human nature. With most crimes and criminals justice can best be served if a debt (the harm) is payed back to society, or if the criminal can be rehabilitated and reconciled with the members of society as a fair and equal member. Heinous crimes are different in that reconciliation is not possible and there is no debt that can be fairly compensated. No just resolution can be reached. In other words, there are some types of human conduct that reach beyond the limits of a human justice system. I find comments like this, "no matter how emotionally gratifying they may be to many people." to be highly offensive. There is nothing that society can do to a heinous criminal that is gratifying. It is presumptuous to suggest that executions are motivated by blood lust. Incarcerations of heinous criminals can in no way be termed a just resolution. In some cases incarcerations actually offer an alternative and even rewarding society for the heinous criminals (Ted Bundy for example). I recognize that executions do not pay the debt brought by the heinous criminal. Executions do not undo the harm that has been done, or reconcile the victims. Executions do not avenge the victims either. Executions cannot properly be termed punishment since punishments are meant to bring about a change in behavior of the perpetrator. Executions simply resolve the matter for society. So all we are left with is to face the truth of the matter. We really have no business dealing with people who have so ripped the fabric of society that it cannot be repaired in their regard. We are limited creatures who have no civilized resolution for heinous criminals. At least, I have not seen such a resolution addressed here or in history. Jails and the justice system are part of civilized society. The heinous criminals have chosen to permanently place themselves outside of civilized society. Execution is not gratifying except that it recognizes the truth and the resolution of that fact.