It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Do you know how reluctant I was to agree with this? Not specifically the death penalty, but the system as a whole is supposed to keep those who will not play by the rules away from kids so they can safely be educated. It's supposed to keep doctors from needing to save as many lives. So the Death Penalty, as a part of the whole is necessary, but if the system can protect and defend without it, or even supersede a system with a death penalty in these goals, then why not do away with it? My thing is I'm not so sure it will work.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Further, suggesting that capital punishment is a service as necessary as medicine, building homes or other buildings, or teaching is remarkably short sighted. A populace with out any medical practices becomes a sick populace soon enough. A populace without any contractors to build edifices remains a homeless populace, and that populace without any teachers remains either ignorant, or free of indoctrination depending upon who is teaching and why. However, a populace without the death penalty does not in anyway threaten the social fabric in the same way that eliminating medicine, building, or teaching would.
Hidden or sanctioned. I'm not calling it that, like I defined it. I'm using the definition of the word from it's base meaning.
There is another poster in this thread who has been disingenuously asserting that it is inappropriate to call the death penalty murder because it is not "hidden". As if being open and notorious about the slaying changes it from a crime to a right.
The hidden part is useless to me because you hide unsanctioned killing, so as to not be caught doing something that is considered unlawful, so it's more about not having a law back the kill up. My only fault in this is that I probably should have used "and" instead of "or". I see a comma, I see "or"--which would mean, possibly, that hidden is definition enough all on it's own, but I don't personally think that hidden can be used separate of unsanctioned, although unsanctioned doesn't have to be hidden as well, to be called murder. BU this has to do with the intent of hiding.
murder (n.) Look up murder at Dictionary.com O.E. morðor (pl. morþras) "secret killing of a person, unlawful killing," also "mortal sin, crime, punishment, torment, misery," from P.Gmc. *murthran (cf. Goth maurþr, O.Fris. morth, O.N. morð, M.Du. moort, Ger. Mord "murder"). from PIE *mrtro-, from base *mer- "to die" (cf. L. mors, gen. mortis "death;" mori "to die;" see mortal). The spelling with -d- probably reflects influence of Anglo-Fr. murdre, from O.Fr. mordre, from M.L. murdrum, from the W.Gmc. root. Viking custom, typical of Germanic, distinguished morð (O.N.) "secret slaughter," from vig (O.N.) "slaying." The former involved concealment, or slaying a man by night or when asleep, and was a heinous crime. The latter was not a disgrace, if the killer acknowledged his deed, but he was subject to vengeance or demand for compensation. Mordre wol out that se we day by day. [Chaucer, "Nun's Priest's Tale," c.1386] Weakened sense of "very unpleasant situation" is from 1878. The verb is O.E. myrðrian, from P.Gmc. *murthjan. Related: Murdered; murdering.
This means nothing because while these were in the open, they still were not sanctioned.
If this were so, the John Wilkes Booth would not have been pursued as a criminal who had assassinated Abraham Lincoln. Sirhan Sirhan would not be sitting in prison today for the open and notorious assassination of Robert Kennedy, and Jared Lee Loughner would not be in the mess he is today, if all it takes to excuse the murder is making it open and notorious.
This and this, which was the entirety of my stance on the English difference between murder and killing. This was the Biblical one, that was meant to point out that Murder and Killing mean two different things, directly as a response to
No games of semantics, no matter how well argued the fallacy, no argument advocating unlawful behavior will stand muster when heard by the ears of the rational and critical thinker.
Originally posted by patternchekhow can you legally justify doing the exact same thing that that is being done...
Originally posted by CynicalDrivel Speaking at the 1 person who posted any scripture, this wasn't about justifying state sanctioned murder, but about addressing an assumption from someone else that the 10 commandments says: "Do not Kill". this was completely about the illogical use of semantics, so if you want to have that reaction, please, go ahead. People keep on insisting that these words mean EXACTLY the same thing, and they don't. Therefore I'm going to tell them that they're not reasoning soundly--irrelevant of whether or not it is right or wrong to have a government-sanctioned killing.
I did use the correct word in association with "death penalty", but I NEVER stated why I agree with a death penalty. Well, at least not here, or in reference to semantics...
Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
Now, as far as my own opinion?
Is A Death Penalty right? Absolutely. There are times to kill.
Is OUR Death Penalty right? Sometimes.
Is OUR Death Penalty's only partial ability to be right worth abolishing the Death Penalty altogether? Maybe.
Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Great thread e1!
I think the U.S. should abolish the death penalty, because executing someone for what they did brings you down to their level. I think there needs to be a moral high ground that's established.
The animal side of me would call for vigilante style justice where the effected family members of the deceased would be free to "pursue" the convicted.....