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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: robnhood who wrote (4289)	2/2/1998 9:15:00 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 20981

You're guilty of murdering the language in the first degree calling the death penalty murder.

To: robnhood who wrote (4289)	2/2/1998 9:18:00 PM
From: Sawdusty	Respond to of 20981

Better put on your flame retardent suit Russell. :-)) Dan

To: robnhood who wrote (4289)	2/2/1998 9:28:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

America preaches thou shalt not kill? I don't think so. You may not unlawfully deprive another person of their life but people accidentally kill each other all the time. And you may intentionally kill someone when you reasonably believe your own life is in danger. You may kill an unborn child. You make take the life of a murderer. And young men who sign up for the armed forces know they may be asked to give their lives or take the lives of others. Only the Bible says thou shalt not kill, and the Christians obviously didn't obey, probably because the Bible is full of God killing people or helping people kill people.

To: robnhood who wrote (4289)	2/2/1998 9:29:00 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 20981

I can't count the number of people who say, (about Iraq) , they're gonna get it, Nuke em, and other such talk. Including the President's spokesman: exchange2000.com

To: robnhood who wrote (4289)	2/3/1998 12:19:00 AM
From: Triluminary	Respond to of 20981

Russell, "IMHO the death penalty is sraight up revenge" Ignoring your rather emotional call that the death penalty is murder, your classification of the death penalty as revenge is where we differ. There is no glory in the death penalty. No civilized person should take pleasure in it. I certainly do not. Below is an article by Marilyn Vos Savant. It does a good job of summing up both sides of the DP debate. Check out her conclusion. This is my last post on this subject. Now back to the Slick and Monica story or what's left of it. Contained within the Feb. 16, 1997 "Ask Marilyn" column in Parade Magazine was the following: Question: Will you please share with all your faithful readers your thoughts on the issue of capital punishment, including how you rate the chief pros and cons? -- R.W. Brignone, Vallejo, Calif. Answer: In an ideal world, I would be opposed to capital punishment. The mentally ill would still commit some heinous acts, and the rest of us would lock them safely away where they could do no more harm. And because an ideal would not be a police state, there would still be some criminals who would commit these acts. But in order to encourage a society that is above vengeance -- a repellent concept in itself and one that demeans its pursuer and damages its perpetrator -- I also would lock these public enemies securely away, probably for the rest of their lives, depending on the crime. Retribution will not bring justice. For a murder victim, there is no justice possible; it's too late for that. But the world is not yet ideal. Although I believe there is no place for the death penalty in the most civilized of societies, it may be necessary in the least civilized of them. At this point, I rank our country between those two extremes. Although it is obviously highly civilized, it is just as obviously deteriorating in certain significant ways. The case against? As the ultimate act of thoroughly understandable vengeance, the death penalty encourages the violence it is meant to stop. When we strike an enemy, however evil he may be, we invite a strike in return, if not by the one individual, then by his followers and by all those who imagine him to be one of them, rippling throughout the whole underclass of violent criminals. That is, the more we kill criminals, the more they'll kill us -- unless we're so broadly effective that we eliminate them entirely. That is one of the reasons I believe it is more effective to have no death penalty at all than it is to have a weakly administered one. And it may not be possible to have a convincing death penalty administered by as gentle a segment of our society as our law-abiding citizens have become. Moreover, vengeance is an ugly sight and causes real damage to the perpetrator. Pretend for a moment that the following terrible event occurs: Your beloved daughter's husband is senselessly murdered by an intruder. He is caught, and she is given the opportunity to legally (and without personal risk) kill him herself. Would you want her to do it? Or would she be diminished afterward? The act of killing in vengeance, no matter how justified, changes the killer -- who is, in this case, your daughter. For a moment, then, don't focus on the reprehensible character who murdered your son-in-law; focus on your innocent daughter instead. Is the act of killing even a reprehensible character an experience you would want her to have? You might want to discuss this with others before coming to a conclusion. The case for? I can find nothing positive about the concept of capital punishment. At best, it is surely a deterrent of the strongest possible magnitude. I suggest that most who believe otherwise are probably rationalizing an obviously justifiable abhorrence for the death penalty. When emotions are involved, it is more difficult to be free of bias, and this is a good example. My definition of bias is the inability to give credit to "the other side" when it is due, usually combined with the inability to accept debit to one's "own" side when it is due. These are the hallmarks of a biased argument. And this is why the issue of capital punishment -- a highly emotional issue -- bursts with bias, and why so many bad arguments are made about it. The thought of capital punishment working as a deterrent to violent crime is sickening to those people who are revolted by the death penalty, as I am, and so they deny it. This is because belief in such deterrence requires one to take a position that one finds abhorrent. I understand this. But because I find murder far more abhorrent than I find capital punishment, I reluctantly support the administration of the death penalty.