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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (39274)	3/18/1999 12:54:00 PM
From: JBL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

You know, we have talked about Hitler to justify the death penalty. I would like to give you another scenario that may generate a more thoughtful approach to this debate. You are the proud parent of one kid. One only son. You have raised him, and you love him. When he is 20, he hangs out with the wrong crowd, gets involved in a verbal shouting match, and ends up shooting and killing the guy he is arguing with. He is convicted, and sentenced to death. Do you try to get a grace from your Governor ?

To: one_less who wrote (39274)	3/18/1999 12:55:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>Putting a person to death as his penalty for an offense to society, NEVER balances the scale of debt. The surviving members of a family, for example, are not paid back, and society collects nothing from the corpse.< Again, it is obvious that the victim's family is not given its loved one back by an implementation of the death penalty. But it is completely unreasonable to claim that since the victim cannot be brought back to life by the death penalty, the victim's murderer should live. If I own a million-dollar work of art that a bum destroys, we should not simply ignore the disparity because the bum does not have the money. The bum should confront the law and be held to repaying all that he can toward the disparity. His poverty would likely be a mitigating circumstance warranting his release from the debt, nevertheless those circumstances served as the entry necessary to balance the ethical ledger. In the case of unmitigated murder, the perpetrator does have something which we might use to help balance the ledger, he in fact has two things: 1.) his life, 2.) his poverty that releases him from further debt. Society does indeed collect something from the corpse. It collects civilization from it. It benefits in that all members of society understand that no one can get something for nothing. If someone creates a disparity against a member of society, that member will readily understand that society will see to it that the disparity is corrected to the maximum extent possible. Otherwise war and barbarity must result as people aim to correct disparities themselves. >Not being put to death results in the continued burden to society. This level of criminal is bound to continue manipulating the system to meet their selfish and evil agenda….< And the death penalty sees to it that this further disparity does not occur. >Simply put, there are certain crimes that no society is equiped to deal with. When someone perpetrates this type or level of crime, they should be immediately sent to final judgement (via the death penalty).< And the disparity will have been corrected. Surely the victim's relatives will have lost a loved one. But society will not have lost civility. Those relatives will understand they must forgive the balance of their perpetrator's debt as they see his poverty occupying the other side of the ethical ledger. >It is not heartless this determination is not an issue of human compassion because once a person goes to this level of evil, he has stepped beyond the guidelines we have been given by God to deal with one another. It's no longer our business.< Sure it's our business, my friend. If someone kills a man's wife and the man has not trust enough in society to attempt correcting the ledger to the maximum extent possible, he will correct it himself if he has any self-respect. So will very many others. In effect, civil society will end. >Human, love, hate, vengeance, mercy, charity, tolerance are not the issue. If they were as the current debate insists, I would not support the death penalty. In the presence of God's judgement, murderers are faced with the murdered persons testimony against their soul and perfect justice is administered.< I speak here not as a theist. I as a Christian may acknowledge no right to tinker with the natural ledger, but I cannot expect the entire world will think this way. I speak here of what is natural, not of what is supernatural. >Sure we could make a mistake in judging them guilty here on earth. We have a guarantee that they would have their just rewards and punishments accordingly.< LOL. Are you saying what I think, that whether the man is guilty or innocent, if we kill a man he will ultimately get what he deserves anyway? What an interesting way to put it. (grin. Gotta run!)